Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS (CONTROL OF FOOD PREMISES) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 1

CLOSURE OF FOOD PREMISES OR STALLS DANGEROUS TO HEALTH

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out from "given" to end of line 16 and insert—

"(a) the person against whom the information was laid, and
(b) if he is not that person, the owner of the premises or stall (unless the local authority are unable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain his identity),

written notice of their intention to apply for the order."

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I should like first to express my thanks to Earl Ferrers and others in another place for the expeditious and effective way in which they dealt with the Bill.
This is a straightforward, technical amendment, which ensures that if the local authority, having made reasonable inquiries, is unable to ascertain the identity of the owner of premises, it may then proceed with the orders and the other parts of the Bill in relation to the closure of the restaurant.
The provision should have been in the Bill originally. I regret that it was not. The amendment closes an important loophole.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): This was a Government amend-

ment moved in another place to rectify a technical defect in the Bill. As the Bill was drafted, a closure order could not be made unless the authority had given 14 days' notice to the owner of the business as well as to the operator. But it might be very difficult for it to identify the owner.
The authority has power to require the occupier to give the name and address of the owner, but the maximum penalty for making a mis-statement is only £20. It is conceivable that operators of businesses threatened with closure might be deliberately obstructive or not know the ultimate owner because of the complexity of the business.
The amendment meets the problem described by the hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on the way in which he has promoted the Bill. My Department has given drafting assistance, and we have been very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bowden: With permission, I should like to thank the Minister for his comments and say how grateful I am for the tremendous help I have had from his colleagues and members of his Department.

Question put and agreed to.

DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

LICENCES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 22, after "stipulate" insert
(being a fee which is in the authority's opinion sufficient to meet the direct and indirect costs which it may incur as a result of the application)

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Before dealing with the amendment, I should like to give the House the apologies of the sponsor of the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), who unfortunately has been indisposed this week. He is now better, and will shortly be with us again.
I should also like to thank Lord Chelwood for his support in another place The Bill was thrust upon him and he was obliged to deal with all sorts of animals the like of which I am sure he had never heard of before. I hope that he is grateful that he has heard of them now. He dealt with the matter very well in another place, and on behalf of the sponsors and the House I thank him for that. I also thank the Home Office for its help and support throughout the passage of the Bill. I have found it refreshing, since entering the House, to know that on a non-party political Bill the same help can be given to any hon. Member, whatever his party.
The amendments were made after consultation with all the parties affected. This amendment concerns the fee that might be charged by local authorities throughout the country. The principle of the Bill is that it should pay for itself and not be a financial burden on the ratepayer or anyone other than those who apply for licences. Concern was expressed in another place that local authorities should be given guidance or at least an intimation that it was not the Bill's intention that fees should be used as a weapon to prevent people applying for licences or keeping the animals covered by them.
This intimation—the amendment amounts to no more than that—is that it will be a fee which in the authority's opinion is sufficient to meet the direct and indirect costs that may arise as a result of the application.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 3, leave out from "licence;" to end of line 7 and insert—
(iv) the person to whom the licence is granted shall hold a current insurance policy which insures him and any other person entitled to keep the animal under the authority of the licence against liability for any damage which may be caused by the animal; and
(v) the terms of any such policy shall be satisfactory in the opinion of the authority;".

Mr. Temple-Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment seeks to tidy up the insurance provisions in the Bill, which originally stated that insurance covered injury to any person. The effect of the

amendment, apart from the drafting improvement, is that it now covers not only injury to any animal the subject of this legislation but any property and general damage.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 3,
divide Clause 1 into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (10) inclusive (Licences) and the second consisting of subsections (11) to (18) inclusive (Provisions supplementary to section 1).

Mr. Temple-Morris: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a purely drafting amendment. I would only point out that Clause 1 has steadily grown greater and greater. Since it was becoming more difficult to understand, the provisions were split into Clauses 1 and 2.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

PENALTIES

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6, line 26, leave out
Act 1912, the Protection of Animals Act 1934
and insert "Acts 1912 to 1964"

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is of a drafting nature and relates to an omission that was discovered when the Bill reached another place. The omission related to the question whether Scotland was covered by these provisions. This amendment ensures that the situation north and south of the border will be accurately covered in the statutes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

INTERPRETATION

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 7, line 22, at end insert—
"damage" includes the death of, or injury to, any person".

Mr. Temple-Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 2, and the interpretation clause of the Bill will now include the death of, or injury to, any person.

Question put and agreed to.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

New Clause A

RIGHT OF HUSBAND TO CITE PARAMOUR AS A CO-DEFENDER AND TO SUE FOR DAMAGES ABOLISHED

Lords Amendment: No. 1, after Clause 9, in page 8, line 6, at end insert new Clause A:
A.—(1) After the commencement of this Act the following rights of a husband shall be abolished, that is to say—

(a) the right to cite a paramour of his wife as a co-defender in an action for divorce, and
(b) the right to claim or to obtain damages (including solatium) from a paramour by way of reparation.

(2) Nothing in the provisions of the foregoing subsection shall preclude the court from awarding the expenses of the action for or against the paramour or alleged paramour in accordance with the practice of the court.
(3) Section 7 of the Conjugal Rights (Scotland) (Amendment) Act 1861 (citation of a co-defender in an action for divorce and decree for expenses against him) shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I should like to express my appreciation to Scottish Members of all parties for their support in this Bill, to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, to the Lord Advocate, and to Lord Selkirk, who steered the Bill through another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

STOCK EXCHANGE (COMPLETION OF BARGAINS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MOTOR-CYCLE CRASH-HELMETS (RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading).

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 11.

Division No. 257.]
AYES
[11.16 a.m.


Beith, A. J.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Shersby, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hatton, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Carter-Jones, Lewis
John, Brynmor
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Clemitson, Ivor
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thompson, George


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Mikardo, Ian
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Palmer, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pavitt, Laurie
Weatherill, Bernard


Ford, Ben
Peart, Rt Hon Fred



Freud, Clement
Pendry, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr Sydney Bidwell and


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Miss Jo Richardson.


Graham, Ted
St. John-Stevas, Norman





NOES


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Montgomery, Fergus
Winterton, Nicholas


Cryer, Bob
Neubert, Michael



Goodhew, Victor
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Mr. Jerry Wiggin.




Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read the Third time and passed.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS BILL

(Changed from DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL)

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DIS- ABLED PERSONS (AMEND- MENT) (No. 2) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

INDUSTRIAL COMMON OWNERSHIP BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 1

ENFORCEMENT BY POLICE

A constable may enter any premises in respect of which an order under section 1 or section 2 of this Act has been made at any time during which the sale, consumption or supply of intoxicating liquor is permitted and this power shal be in addition to the powers conferred by virtue of section 186 of the principal Act.—[Sir Bernard Braine.]

11.30 a.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I begin with the observation that, as far as I am aware, no sponsor of the Bill is present at the moment, which perhaps accounts for a number of the criticisms that will come to light as the debate develops.
The House will recall that when we adjourned on Friday 18th June I was explaining why there were good solid reasons for police anxiety about the Bill's proposals to permit both longer and later drinking hours and the admission of children under the age of 14 unaccompanied to licensed bars.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would discuss briefly the matters that he raised before, since some of us have not as good memories as we had.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry). I know the deep interest that he shows in matters of this kind. I have been greatly moved by the expressions of support that I have received from colleagues in all parties in this House since the realisation began to dawn, somewhere in the middle of the Committee stage, that this Bill was not exactly what it set out to be—that it was in fact a most serious reversal of the trends in our licensing and social laws, and that it opened un serious dangers.
I shall not, of course, go into general matters, but I think that I am entitled to reply to the hon. Member for Battersea, South and to say that, as hon. Members began to realise the full implications of the Bill, which had slipped through


its Second Reading on a Friday afternoon in a House of no more than 15 hon. Members, they came to me in increasing numbers expressing their alarm at the Bill's proposals and their concern to ensure that it was contested at every stage. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Battersea, South is here today to give me his very considerable support.
The House is glad to see that the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has now arrived. On one matter I am quite clear. It is that, when he introduced the Bill in the first place, he had not the faintest idea of what he was about. Of course, I acquit him at once of knowingly bringing before the House of Commons a measure that would have aroused the opposition of licensees at one end of the scale and Churches at the other end, to say nothing of the police, social workers, parents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am the Speaker. I know the great ability of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) for covering a very wide range of topics in his remarks. However, he will realise that we are dealing only with the right of the police to enter premises. The hon. Gentleman's other observations, I think, might wait for Third Reading.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker, as ever, and I think that it is quite possible that when we come to the next amendment, which deals with the question whether Parliament should have Dowers to review all the proposals in the Bill—should we, in a fit of absence of mind or in a mood of irresponsibility, pass it today—these more general matters could be discussed.
The nub of my argument when I last addressed the House on this new clause was, and still is, that those who seek to change the licensing laws at a time when drunkenness and alcoholism, especially among the young, and death and injury on the roads due to excessive drinking are all on the increase, are under a very special obligation to ensure that the relaxations that they propose in our licensing laws are properly controlled. I say in passing that these matters are of considerable concern not merely to the police but to the general public, to parents, to social workers and, indeed,

to everyone who is concerned about the quality of life in this country.
The purpose of my new clause is to ensure that if this misguided, ill-fated and unwanted Bill were by some mischance, by some unhappy alchemy to become law there should at least be adequate powers for the surveillance of licensed premises by the police by providing them with an unfettered right of entry during times that drink is being sold, consumed and supplied.
I shall not repeat all the arguments that I advanced on 18th June to demonstrate the need for increased surveillance of this kind. Suffice it for me to say now that we are already facing a deteriorating situation in standards of sobriety, as a vast number of licensees will testify, and the mounting toll of death and injury on the roads due to excessive drinking hours. The House is delighted to see that, although the Home Office is said to be neutral about the Bill, the Under-Secretary of State is in her place. We all know where her heart lies in this matter and, as a responsible Home Office Minister who studies the statistics on drunkenness, alcohol-related offences, the disturbing increase of alcoholism and the manifold dangers to which the young are particularly subjected, she must be aware of the basic truth of what I am saying. Bearing in mind that one of the proposals of the Bill is to permit young children under the age of 14 to enter licensed bars unaccompanied, she will certainly be extremely concerned about any proposal to that end and its repercussions.
Since I am arguing the case for increased police surveillance of public houses—and I shall come to this in greater detail in due course—it is appropriate to say at this stage that the number of persons convicted for drunkenness in the year 1974 was the highest since the year 1920, and the trend is continuing. That alone should be a matter of concern to the House of Commons. It should be a matter of concern also to the public in general and not merely to those who are versed in and have direct responsibilities in these matters. In short, it should be a matter of concern to us all that we are reaching the levels of drunkenness and insobriety, especially among the young, which disgraced our national reputation in the years before 1914 and led to the first major reform of the licensing laws.
What is particularly significant in this context is the fact that the deterioration includes an increasing number of children. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of special concern to the police as well as to licensees themselves. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members as a whole know, though whether the sponsors of the Bill have ever been aware of the fact is doubtful, that under-age drinking between the age of 14 and the permitted age has increased sharply and that there have been an increased number of convictions of those permitting under-age drinking.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will my hon. Friend concede that my Bill proposes no change to the law on the permitted age for drinking and that under-age drinking is not remotely affected by the Bill's provisions?

Sir Bernard Braine: The naivety of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe constantly worries me. Of course, his Bill does not propose any change in the age of permitted drinking. It would be quite shocking if it did. However, in many parts of the United States of America, changes are contemplated in respect of the age of drinking precisely because of the anxieties that I have been expressing throughout these debates about conditions in this country. In the United States of America—I respond, Mr. Speaker, to an invitation from my hon. Friend, naive and perhaps irrelevant though it might be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is in no position to make such invitations. There are plenty of other amendments, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the rights of the police to enter these premises.

Sir Bernard Braine: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I have attempted to lay before the House the facts, the statistics and the matters that have been causing deep concern to licensees, the police and the general public. The difficulty is that my hon. Friend will persist in interrupting so as to draw me away from the central argument.
I am on the theme of under-age drinking, and for the benefit of my hon. Friend I shall spell out exactly what I am saying.

Under the existing law it is not unlawful for young people under the age of 14 to be present in licensed bars. The difficulty that many licensees have is determining whether a young person male or female, in a bar is 15, 16 or 17 or has reached the permitted age to drink. The point I am making—and thanks to my hon. Friend I am now able to drive it right home—is that even without his Bill there has been an increase in recent years in under-age drinking. That has disturbed licensees because it puts them in peril, it being difficult for them to identify someone who is under 18.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but he is discussing a much wider issue than that which is contained within the new clause, which authorises the police to enter premises in the terms of the clause.

Sir Bernard Braine: One of my reasons for asking for these increased powers on behalf of the police is to show that the law is already being broken by young people in public houses. This is a matter that is disturbing licensees and the police, for reasons that I shall explain later. It is surely necessary for us to consider the existing state of the law in the context of a Bill that will increase the number of young persons going unaccompanied into public houses. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not straying from the bounds of order.
It is necessary too, because of the appalling ignorance that has been shown by those who think that this is a necessary and liberal reform, to spell out these matters in great detail. The need for the new clause has to be considered against the background—I defy anyone to say that I am wrong, and I am sure that my argument will be confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—that we have an increasing problem of under-age drinking in our public houses. I hope that I shall have the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. After all, he asked the question but now seems to be engaged in consultations on the Back Benches.
11.45 a.m.
Admittedly children have no rights under the Bill to purchase liquor. I


should think not. My hon. Friend stretches credulity a great distance, but that would be going too far. It is surely necessary in present circumstances to recognise the need for greater police surveillance than that which now obtains. Some hon. Members may have seen a BBC television programme on teenage drinking a week or 10 days ago. Here we are considering the effects of a proposal to introduce even younger children—namely, those under the age of 14—into licensed bars where they can see what older children are getting up to. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents them being taken into licensed bars by their parents or by elder brothers and sisters, who may be over the age of 18 who are permitted to drink or between the ages of 14 and 18 who are not so permitted.
Every attempt to introduce safeguards and amendments on this score was defeated in Committee due to the arrogance and, if I may say so, the stupidity of the sponsors. It will be possible, should this misguided measure ever become law, for children under the age of 14 to go into the accommodation set aside under the children's accommodation orders that are permitted to be obtained under the Bill. It will be possible for them to go in and to see what their elder brothers and sisters are getting up to.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that police forces throughout the country are concerned about the amount of under-age drinking that goes on in public houses and other establishments? Even more important, does he agree that in practice it is almost impossible, in the absence of a birth certificate, to tell the difference between young men and women of 16, 17 or 18, unless they can show positive proof that they are aged 18? It is an impossible job for the publican and even an impossible job for a policeman who might be on the premises. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that anything that is done to make the problem worse is to be highly deplored.

Sir Bernard Braine: I gave way to my hon. Friend knowing in advance that he would have a contribution to make of some weight. He has put his finger on the real issue. He has referred to the deep anxiety that both the police and

licensees have expressed to me. The House of Commons should not fly in the face of such experience and such views.
I said earlier that we must not view our problems in isolation. In an increasingly affluent society, the problem of how to deal with increasing levels of consumption of alcohol and the ill effects that flow from that is not peculiar to Britain alone. In the United States serious consideration is being given to raising the age level for permitting drinking for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to tell the House in what way he feels that the proposals contained in the Bill—as he rightly says, they involve a degree of policing—differ from a situation in a private club where children under the age of 14 are quite easily able to observe older brothers and sisters, as well as parents, consume alcohol.

Sir Bernard Braine: It is much more likely that a child would be taken into a private club by his parents. However, I am not defending arrangements in any sort of licensed premises that expose children under the age of 14 to the dangers that I shall mention in some detail at a later stage. My hon. Friend's intervention is valuable as it highlights the stupidity, if I may say so, of permitting a piecemeal amendment to be made to the existing licensing laws by a Private Member.
One of the views that have been expressed to me by senior police officers is that the licensing law touches a very large number of people. First, there are those in the trade. I am speaking today with the full authority of at least one-third of the licensee in this country. I speak with the full backing of the National Association of Licensed House Managers, which represents one-third of all licensees. I have also had a vast number of letters from tenant licensees who support this view.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am sure my hon. Friend is not asserting to the House that any of those bodies support the new clause giving extended powers to constables to enter premises. I understand that the bodies to which he has referred, with which I have been in close contact.


as he has, have no views on the clause. My hon. Friend is simply using it as another platform to delay progress on the Bill and to give his views on his interpretation of every conceivable part of this measure.

Sir Bernard Braine: I have not got the special line to every licensee in the country that my hon. Friend claims to have, but he is utterly wrong with regard to public house managers. Indeed, they want greater protection from the police. My hon. Friend's naivety disturbs me. Every time he opens his mouth, he puts not one but both feet in it.
The truth of the matter is that many hon. Members representing urban areas and city centres know full well of the violence, for example, to which public house managers are exposed these days.
They should also know that public house managers would like drastic powers to keep trouble-makers out of their pubs. If my hon. Friend will be patient, he will hear the reason why I say that the police too want additional powers that they have not got at the moment. I defy my hon. Friend to say otherwise. I look forward with eager anticipation to his next intervention.
Three people outside the House have told me in the last few weeks that we must be mad to waste parliamentary time on a measure of this kind, which is designed to allow unaccompanied children under the age of 14 into licensed bars, at a time of rising violence and alcoholic abuse, and to extend licensing hours. However, I shall not stray down that road. Mr. Speaker, because you would very quickly point out to me that there will be an opportunity on later amendments to raise those points.
There are two other reasons why increased police surveillance is necessary. First, there is an ever-present need to protect young children against undesirable influences in public places. We did not discuss this matter in Standing Committee. I have been reluctant to raise the matter, and I would not have done so but for the fact that the police have indicated that they would like it raised. The Bill permits children under the age of 14 to go into licensed bars unaccompanied or accompanied by persons other than their parents. The

police tell me that they are very worried about this socially irresponsible and dangerous proposal.
I am talking about young children. It is had enough for 14 and 15-year-olds already. But wherever young children gather or can be taken—in this instance, into a licensed bar—by someone other than a parent or close relative, problems of indecency or corruption may arise. A chief superintendent of police with many years' experience of police work in London assures me that in these circumstances there could be molestation. I say this in the knowledge that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is present and that if I exaggerate she will intervene and say "I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman is going too far." I am wearing my hat as a loyal Member of the Conservative Party. I do not easily rush into praise of Labour Ministers, but in recent months I have been struck by the high degree of responsibility that the hon. Lady has brought to her task. Therefore, what I say will be pointed in her direction. Police experience is that whenever there is a big exhibition in London or in any of the big cities which attracts large numbers of unaccompanied children under the age of 14—even Wimbledon tennis, believe it or not, and certainly cricket at the Oval—

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Or the Science Museum.

Sir Bernard Braine: —they have to put additional constables on duty. They have to do it specifically for this reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is for the first time showing some awarness of the dangers of the Bill that he has introduced. The police say that if there is any question of the House of Commons being so idiotic and irresponsible as to permit children under the age of 14 to enter bars unaccompanied or accompanied by anybody other than their parents, they must have increased powers of surveillance. That is one of the reasons for this new clause.
There is a second reason. I think it is within the knowledge of most Members who represent large cities and sizeable towns that unhappily there is a growing problem of violence at closing time. It is relevant to point out that, if closing time is to be made later, experience all the


world over is that the period of violence and insobriety shifts. Obviously, as people drink more and for longer the dangers in that direction increase.
I shall not read to the House the vast volume of letters that I have had from licensees. I have had letters from representatives of licensee managers in the North-West, the North-East, Yorkshire and Greater London. They all draw attention to the fact that there is growing anxiety about longer hours leading to greater insobriety. They feel that they would be less able to control the situation all the time for which they have to answer in respect of their licences to the magistrates.
12 noon
If anyone is in doubt about the seriousness of the abuse that my clause seeks to remedy, let him read the annual reports of chief constables. I suppose that all of us, as responsible Members of this House, have been disturbed at the rising trend in crimes of violence in particular, and therefore, perhaps for the first time, we have been studying the reports of chief constables more closely than hitherto. Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend has armed himself with a report from the chief of his county force, and I have here several such reports. What do these reports tell us? They tell us that there is an increasing police problem. If one translates that into reality, it amounts to the fact that increasing numbers of publicans are being assaulted and that more and more they are becoming worried about getting their staffs home late at night. The police report increasing rowdyism.
Why is the situation deteriorating? My hon. Friend will no doubt see the link between the proposal that he brings to the House to encourage under-l4-year-olds to enter the atmosphere of licensed bars to watch the behaviour of the over-14s—an increasing number of whom are drinking, even though they are under age—and what is happening. He will by the Bill encourage the trend which everybody in the trade, the police and every responsible person deplores. The irresponsibility of this proposal completely shocks me.
A number of our colleagues in the House are magistrates, and if there is any further doubt about what I am saying

my hon. Friend should read the weekly law digest Justice of the Peace, which shows a sickening increase in violence at closing time, when licensees, police officers and members of the public suffer savage injury. How in heaven's name anybody can come before the House with a proposal that would increase that trend—as it is bound to do—defeats me.
The point about all this is that it is happening under the existing laws. There has been a deterioration under the existing licensing laws which have hitherto been a model for the rest of the world. All that my hon. Friend's Bill will do will be to release forces that will encourage the deterioration to move much faster. If permitted hours are extended and if there are different closing times in adjacent areas, it is the considered view of many licensees and the police that the situation will worsen.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The position could be even more difficult, because under the Bill the magistrates will have a discretion to extend hours in a particular public house and therefore, unlike the situation in the past when those who wanted to drink more had to cross the river or a borough boundary, it may now be a question merely of walking across the street or along the street for a few hundred yards to another public house that is open. The situation will be completely different in future.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is right. He represents a London constituency, and he speaks with considerable authority on the matter. He shows the danger of the Bill. Some licensees may apply for these orders and get them, and others will be forced to apply for similar orders so as to stay in business. We are dealing not with a monopoly but with a highly competitive trade, and licensee after licensee has told me that despite the dangers and the risks, if his competitor down the road, across the river or in the next local authority area succeeds in getting an extended hour's order and/or a children's accommodation order, he will be obliged either to conform and get similar orders or be forced out of business.
It is a fact that has not been challenged that one reason—it may be only one, but it is a reason—why drunkenness is greater in Scotland than in England and Wales


is that in Scotland there are more outlets for drinking on licensed premises in relation to the total population than there are here—that is to say, under the English and Welsh pub system. I have no knowledge of the system in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows better than anyone else how tolerant I have been. The general law in England and Scotland is not closely related to the clause. Perhaps the hon. Member will somehow link what he is saying with his clause.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. This is a technical subject, but it is not difficult to relate all these matters to the central theme because, if I may say so in explanation, one reason why, until recently, our licensing laws were admired by the world as a whole is that we had devised a general framework within which drinking could take place in an orderly fashion, in a pleasant fashion, and the image of the English pub is something that we should all seek to cherish. I am talking of the English pub immortalised in literature by Dr. Johnson and the hospitality which most of us have enjoyed at one time or another.

Mr. David Weitzman: I am sorry for being a little late in coming into the debate. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the effect of the decision in the Valentine v. Jackson case so that hon. Members can appreciate the difficulty that arises in connection with surveillance by the police?

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. and learned Gentleman is well versed in matters of law. I hope he will contribute to the debate and perhaps pursue with his specialised knowledge and experience the implications of the Valentine v. Jackson case. I am coming to that because it is central to my argument. Indeed, in the earlier part of my speech on 18th June I revealed that as a consequence of the High Court decision, I think in 1971—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) had other obligations when we last debated this matter, and no doubt he had a good reason for not being present before

now at this debate, but is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) to repeat an earlier part of his speech so that a point can be made to a late arrival in the debate? It is within my recollection that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East dealt in laborious detail with the Valentine v. Jackson case at an earlier stage. I think that those who differ from my hon. Friend should be allowed to reply to the case that he makes rather than that he should be allowed to repeat that passage of his speech to each of his supporters who comes into the Chamber at a late stage.

Mr. Speaker: That is a fair point of order. As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) knows, repetition, especially tedious repetition—though it would not apply to him—is out of order, and it seems to me that he has plenty of other material and need not repeat what he said on 18th June.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) acted in all innocence when he put his question to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I would have thought that, whether he is late or early, he is entitled to have a reply.

Mr. Speaker: I know exactly the degree of innocence of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), but having had my attention drawn to the matter I know that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will co-operate with me and not regurgitate what happened on 18th June.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am always filled with admiration for the marvellous gift which I attribute to the stock from which you spring, Mr. Speaker—the psychic gift of being able to say in advance what I am going to say before I have said it. You very correctly responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who, of course, has no desire whatever to hear the case for the new clause deployed. But I am bound to tell him—and I am seeking to tell him, I have not even begun to tell him yet, and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is bursting to contribute to the


debate—that all that these interventions do is delay matters.

Mr. Bowden: May I ask my hon. Friend to return to what he was saying earlier about the role of the police? I refer him to the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for 1975. On page 45 of that report there is a comparison of the figures for drunkenness with aggravation, which I assume means with violence and various other misdeeds. In 1974 the figure was 47,894, and in 1975 it had risen to 50,400. Surely that is relevant to what my hon. Friend has been saying. Furthermore, on page 39 it is stated:
Wounding offences were over 50,000 and the number and the plight of the victims in these cases must surely give us all cause for concern.

Sir Bernard Braine: It is like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden) to quote such a relevant document, and one cannot fail to conclude that we are facing a deteriorating situation. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) raised the Valentine v. Jackson case because it goes to the nub of the position. It is basic to the argument in support of the new clause. I must refer to that case. I shall not repeat myself in anyway, but I must refer to it in order to put before the House my argument that if the police are to uphold the law greater powers of surveillance should be given to them.
That case reversed the situation which had obtained over the greater part of the century—indeed, for over 100 years—whereby police officers were free, in carrying out their general duties of surveillance, to enter licensed premises, and to do so at irregular intervals so that it should not be known when they were coming. It had always been assumed, prior to that case, that under Section 186 of the Licensing Act 1964 and the legislation that had preceded it police officers had a right and, indeed, a duty to enter licensed premises provided that they did so in good faith for the purpose of preventing and detecting the commission of an offence.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I am following the hon. Gentleman's case with great inter-

est. He is on to a vital point. As I understand it, this new clause would give to a constable the right to enter premises during permitted hours, as he had under the previous legislation. The hours being what they were, a constable was able to enter during those hours. But if we are to extend the hours, as proposed by the Bill, there should be a clear direction that in those extended hours a constable ought to have the right to enter the premises. As I understand it, the new clause would give that specific power.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He brings great clarity and precision to the argument. It was standard practice in every police force prior to the Valentine v. Jackson case to carry out these periodic but unexpected visits to licensed premises. That had the effect of contributing very greatly to observance of the law and to sober behaviour on the part of the customers and of helping the licensee. In short, it contributed to law and order. The judgment in that case was that a police constable could not demand admission to licensed premises under Section 186 unless he had—these are words I have not uttered before, because I have only just consulted the law report on the subject—
reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence is being or is about to be committed on those premises.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: No, I shall not give way. I have had enough until I have finished this argument.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am following this passage in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) in the Official Report of the proceedings on the Bill on 18th June, at columns 1057 and 1058. I respectfully suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) should refer to that passage in Hansard if he wishes to know the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East on this matter and that my hon. Friend should cease repeating it. He is using slightly different words, but in my submission he is using precisely the same notes and is simply rephrasing his notes on the Valentine v. Jackson case which he has


given already in his speech of over an hour.

Mr. Bowden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you give your ruling on the submission of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), would you consider that it is reasonable for my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) to phrase his case in the context of a debate in the House at this moment so that when we come to decide how to vote at the end of the debate we have fully in our minds the case he wishes to put?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there is any danger of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) missing that opportunity. But may I say that it is not fair to repeat what he said on 18th June, if that is what he is doing? I have the misfortune that I cannot recall what he said on that occasion, but I shall shortly be looking it up. However, since I do not return to the Chair for an hour, we may have moved on to other business by then. I know that the hon. Member will respond and not repeat the arguments he has deployed before.

Sir Bernard Braine: Far be it from me to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you might be in danger of falling into a trap carefully set by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. I was quoting from a law report on the subject which I consulted only a day or two ago and which I had not seen at the time of the last debate. The truth of the matter is that, if one is at every turn to be interrupted by either "phoney" points of order or attempts to interfere with the flow of the argument, the effect will not be lost upon hon. Members. It will not be lost, and we will ensure that it is not lost, on the general public and the licensed trade outside the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe may think that this is an opportunity for frivolity, but any proposal that brings young children under the age of 14 unaccompanied into licensed premises revolts and horrifies me, and I think that I speak for the vast majority of parents. If my hon. Friend tempts me much further, I shall go down to the city of Nottingham and tell his constituents of the inequity of the pro-

posals he lays before the House. It would be better for him to allow me to develop the argument for the new clause which must be based upon a consideration of what is the existing law and what the effect of the new clause will be upon it. I should have sat down a considerable time ago had I been permitted to deliver an uninterrupted speech.
Before the judgment in Valentine v. Jackson, it was the standard practice of every police force in the country to carry out unexpected visits to licensed premises. The judgment in the Valentine v. Jackson case was to the effect that a police constable could not demand admission to licensed premises unless he had reasonable grounds for thinking that an offence was actually being committed.
The consequences were not foreseen. In some forces the standing instructions were withdrawn altogether, and there is now considerable uncertainty in the mind of the police officer on the beat about his position. The result is that, at a time of growing difficulty for licensees, the powers of the police in surveillance have been weakened and they now have little or no control over who visits licensed premises.
It is against that background that we must consider the implications of the Bill and the need for the provision in the new clause of increased powers for the police. We have the anxiety over increased opportunity for child molestation. I have in my hand a letter from a senior police officer saying that one point not yet mentioned in respect of this matter concerns the problems of indecency which could occur.

Mr. Weitzman: For the convenience of hon. Members, will the hon. Gentleman give us the reference to the case to which he is referring so that we can look it up in detail?

Sir Bernard Braine: I am not a lawyer, of course. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman referring to the Jackson case?

Mr. Weitzman: Yes.

Sir Bernard Braine: It was before the Queen's Bench Division in 1970–71. I consulted the law reports in the Library.
We have the anxiety over increased opportunity for child molestation. We have the danger of young children under the age of 14, even though they do not


consume alcohol, being exposed to scenes of adult insobriety. We have the growing problem of under-age drinking. As I have said previously, it is lawful at present for children over the age of 14 to enter licensed bars. Most licensees believe that the problem will be compounded by allowing still younger children to enter unaccompanied. We know that this is in keeping with what is happening in other areas where the young are flouting the law, often with impunity—football hooliganism, taking motor vehicles without consent, violent assault in schools and the like.
This, again, is a delicate matter, but we can be absolutely certain that if child accommodation orders are permitted we shall have more young mothers entering bars with children who at present do not go into bars because they have to look after the children at home. A recent report which I mention at this stage and which is probably known to my hon. Friend shows that pregnant women are particularly at risk from alcohol. These are factors which we cannot ignore.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is my hon. Friend therefore asserting that patrolling constables should go round amongst ladies in the relevant parts of licensed premises asking, first, whether they are expecting a happy event and then, secondly, giving advice on the dangers of drinking in pregnancy? Or is my hon. Friend making all these references merely in prosecution of his attempts to frustrate proper debate in the House, as he has done for the past two hours?

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend's frivolity astonishes me. I am suggesting no such thing. The question of health can be discussed in detail on later amendments. These frivolous interruptions show only that my hon. Friend does not begin to understand the nature of the Bill that he seeks to pilot through the House. We all know of these matters. We know, therefore, that this is a bad Bill framed in ignorance of what is happening in society and that it is in direct opposition to what the majority of those in the licensed trade want and in opposition to what the police and social workers want.
The prospect fills me and those people, and I strongly suspect that it fills the majority of Members of the House, too,

with horror. If Parliament allows the Bill to become law, licensees, the police and the ordinary clientele who go to public houses for a quiet drink in pleasant surrounds are entitled to the maximum protection of the law.
The new clause would give back to the police the right of surveillance that they had before the case of Valentine v. Jackson. It would give back to the police that ability to ensure an atmosphere of law and order and normality in public houses which is increasingly threatened by elements that are invading public houses at present and making life increasingly difficult, not merely for the licensees but for the normal customer.
Many of us have gone into public houses recently and, when discussing the Bill, have been told by customers "We come here to get away from children. We come here because we want relaxation from work." I know that the House will grasp the total unreality as well as the dangers of these proposals. The new clause would greatly improve the police powers of surveillance in this respect. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall now seek to reply to the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). It took my hon. Friend one hour on the previous occasion—18th June—and he continued today for a further period, until nearly half-past twelve. In the course of his two-hour speech to a clause that deals with an extremely narrow point about the powers of patrolling constables, my hon. Friend has given the House yet again— as he did on Second Reading, as he did in Committee, and as he did in the House on 18th June—the benefit of every conceivable thought that flows through his head about the provisions of the Bill, about the licensing laws, about the perils of alcoholism, about the increasing crime rate, and about anything else that he could find that would detain the House and prevent it from reaching a conclusion on the Bill.
I shall reply to the clause and to those parts of my hon. Friend's speech which were relevant to it. I understand my hon. Friend's utter incapacity to remain on any particular point for more than a few moments is probably based on the deep sincerity, and, indeed, the ferocity of his opposition to my Bill.
I believe that a debate on this measure would be better conducted if there were less personal abuse hurled at the sponsors of the Bill—abuse that occasionally, I must admit, provokes personal abuse from us back at my hon. Friend—and if there were a greater determination to get to grips with debating the Bill properly, point by point, so that we could deal with specific objections and give specific replies.
The right of hon. Members to filibuster a Bill out of the House has been respected, in some ways, over the years. However, I suggest that a filibuster should be conducted in a slightly more sensible, slightly less hysterical, and slightly less ridiculous fashion than the one that has been adopted by my hon. Friend up to now.
12.30 p.m.
This is an important social matter, and I am sure we are all agreed that we are entitled to have a balanced and orderly debate on it. It will not be lost on the outside world that throughout the protracted proceedings on the Bill its opponents at no stage called a Division. The opponents are a tiny handful of Members who naturally dominate the debate because they are the only people who wish to speak for hour after hour and thus frustrate the progress of the measure, so that they receive an unfair proportion of columns in Hansard and, therefore, publicity in the Press. They are simply using time in order to further a minority position and frustrate a modest but important measure of social reform.

Mr. Ron Lewis: It is astounding that the hon. Gentleman should make that sort of personal accusation. Anybody looking at columns 1003 and 1004 of the Official Report of our debate on 18th June can see that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) dished out more of that sort of thing than any other hon. Member.

Mr. Clarke: Having said what I have, I shall try to impose a self-denying ordinance upon myself, but it will be within the recollection of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) that throughout the course of this morning it has been my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East who has been waving

his arms about and going into diatribes about the sponsors of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way now.

Sir Bernard Braille: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that in the Committee none of the Bill's opponents pressed the matter to a Division. That statement is untrue, and I hope he will withdraw it. We were, of course, in a minority and he had the right to nominate a majority in the Committee.

Mr. Clarke: I did not say "in Committee." I was referring to the debate on the Floor of the House. There were deep divisions in the Standing Committee. One or two Opposition points were accepted by the sponsors, but the fundamental principles of the Bill were supported by the majority of Members in the Standing Committee. On Second Reading on the Floor of the House, on a dilatory motion, the matter was debated for three hours by the opponents of the Bill, and although they dominated the debate by sheer quantity, which was reflected in the columns of Hansard and the reporting of the debate in the Press, they did not call a Division, because they were greatly outnumbered and they knew it. They were merely delaying the Bill by indulging in diatribes.
I should now like to deal with the clause and the serious points that it raises. As the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) said earlier—he has now gone away, presumably to look up for the first time the case of which he professes such knowledge and in which he has so great an interest—the purpose of the clause is to deal with the power of a police constable to enter premises during hours that will be permitted by the Bill. The clause does not deal with the present powers of police constables to enter public houses during permitted hours. The purpose of the clause is to make it clear beyond doubt that a constable may at any time enter premises to which the orders provided in the Bill relate.
The circumstances in which this clause seeks to make clear that the police may


have patrolling powers are provided in Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 is that part of the Bill which gives a licensee the right to approach the licensing justices, only if the licensee wishes to do so, with a view to getting extended hours outside the permitted hours, within the restricted period of 10 a.m. till midnight. Clause 1, therefore, enables a licensee to have extended hours in an area in which there is consumer demand and in a public house where the licensing justices believe that it would be reasonable to allow extended hours.
In such a situation there might be some public houses open from 10 o'clock in the morning. There would probably be a greater number of public houses in shopping centres and seaside resorts that would be open in the afternoon. There would be a few, where the licensing justices were satisfied that mayhem, drunken driving and other such problems arising from the demon alcohol would not be likely to be increased, that would be open until midnight.
Only where the licensing justices had considered that the convenience of the residents was not likely to be disturbed because they lived near the public house would an order relating to extended hours be made, but there would be some public houses that the licensing justices—responsible citizens, far more responsible than my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East and more knowledgeable of the kind of problems on which he dilates at such length—would decide should be open outside the permitted hours—that is to say, between 10 a.m. and 12 midnight.
I shall reserve my full comments on the subject of public houses in respect of which children's accommodation orders have been obtained, but I should say that my hon. Friend's descriptions of this part of the Bill, in his lobbying and in his speeches, are a ludicrous parody of the measures that we are debating. To listen to my hon. Friend, one would think that unaccompanied drunken toddlers would be going to dockside public houses, where they would be subject to molestation, and no doubt robbing pensioners on their way home. The Bill proposes a minor change in the present situation, in which children are frequently taken by responsible adults into the gardens of public houses and into family rooms, where they are per-

mitted so long as there is no bar in the room, and into clubs.
The Bill enables a licensee who wishes to do so to make an application to the licensing justices, indicating to the justices that he has a specific room set aside as a family room. I look forward to debating later the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which would clarify the meaning of family room and it is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East will no doubt try to prevent him getting in with his contributions—

Sir Bernard Braine: That is untrue.

Mr. Clarke: If the licensing justices, having inspected those family rooms, think that they are acceptable, it will be possible for children to enter them. My Bill does not contain the word "accompanied"—a fact that has been seized upon by those who oppose the Bill. I have previously given my explanation, as a practising lawyer, why I think the provision demanded by my hon. Friend would be unenforceable. It would be unenforceable in the same way as it is not possible to enforce the observance of the law relating to A certificate films, where it is required that a child should be accompanied by an adult. It can be abused. It is because I think the word "accompanied" would be abused, and because I share the anxiety that young children should not be encouraged to loiter in these places, that I have included in the Bill the provision that children shall not be permitted to purchase anything in family rooms. That provision is simple to enforce and it would have the effect that my hon. Friends says he wishes.
At the moment anybody of 14 years of age may purchase anything but alcohol in a public house. Under my Bill that provision would be tightened up in the case of family rooms. Somebody under 18 years of age—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman should be addressing himself to New Clause 1.

Mr. Clarke: I am afraid that my interest in trying to balance the debate in response to the filibustering is leading me rather wide. New Clause 1 mentions Clause 2, and my hon. Friend laid much


stress on unaccompanied children as being a principal reason why he wants patrolling constables to enter licensed premises. I had therefore better leave that point. I would simply add that in order to shut up this ridiculous opposition, I now wish, purely as a public relations exercise, that I had put the word "accompanied" in the Bill.
I believe that the Bill as it stands is a much more sensible protection against the dangers that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East goes on about and that he is deliberately misinterpreting it to give him some extra ammunition.
I think that the new clause is totally unnecessary, because a constable would have the necessary powers already. Indeed, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's understanding of the Valentine v. Jackson case of 1971.

Mr. Weitzman: Has the hon. Gentleman read the case of Valentine v. Jackson? Has he read the judgment there? He has just uttered the opinion that the police already have those powers. They do not have those powers, according to that judgment.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for the reference to that case a few moments ago. He then left the Chamber, and I assume that he has now read it for the first time and returned to give his opinion. May I give my view?
According to my recollection—I have not read it this morning—that case concerned a meeting of the Ancient Order of Buffaloes. Sometimes during the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East I have reflected that that is a singularly appropriate subject matter to give rise to this dispute.
In the case of Valentine v. Jackson the difficulty arose over the powers of police constables to enter licensed premises during a private function. The judgment has since given rise, in the minds of some chief constables, to continuing doubts about the ordinary powers of patrolling constables to enter public houses that are open to the public during ordinary licensing hours. Some hold the view that there has to be an expectation of a breach of the licensing law before a police officer may enter.

Mr. Weitzman: With great respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has read the case and the judgment. The headnote itself says:
A police constable cannot demand admission to licensed premises under Section 186(1) of the Licensing Act 1964
—which is the very section referred to in the new clause—
unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence is being, or is about to be, committed on those premises.
If I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I intend to quote a judgment that sets that out fully. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to mislead the House by making this point.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. and learned Gentleman has practised law longer than I have, so he must know that simply reading the headnote is not necessarily an accurate guide to the contents of a judgment. I am delighted that he has decided to study the case of Valentine v. Jackson. If he has time later to read it in full I hope that he will be able to consider my understanding of the case, as I have studied it earlier—

Sir Bernard Braine: That is no way to talk to a Queen's Counsel.

Mr. Clarke: I have spoken to Queen's Counsel before and I have opposed them in the Law Courts. I do not always speak to them with the unquestioning respect with which my hon. Friend thinks that I should have referred to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no disrespect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Bar and leading counsel.
The interpretation of Valentine v. Jackson by some chief constables is that it limits the right of their patrolling officers to enter licensed premises—public bars and saloon bars—at any time during the permitted hours unless they have reason to believe that an offence has been committed. I hope that if the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington bends his considerable legal mind to the matter in order to give a considered judgment, and if he reads it in full, he will come to one view or another of that uncertain matter as to whether that is what the case established.
The facts in that case were much narrower than what we are discussing. What was in dispute was the right of a police constable—I speak from recollection, without the text—to enter a private function on licensed premises when he had no reason to suspect that a breach of the licensing laws had been committed. There are those police authorities which still firmly act on the basis that a patrolling constable has the right to enter licensed premises during permitted hours.
12.45 p.m.
I now come to my conclusions on the clause, in that light. I trust that such opponents of my Bill as are reasonable will listen carefully to the way in which I accept the clause. My understanding of Valentine v. Jackson is that it has given rise to considerable uncertainty. It is certainly the opinion of most responsible people that a police constable should have the right to go at any time certainly into the public parts of licensed premises, because it is a valuable part of his ordinary policing and patrolling duties.
The Bill gives us an opportunity to clarify the matter and make it certain and sure in the case of those premises for which extended hours orders have been made or in those places where there are family rooms to which children are admitted. I welcome the opportunity to make it certain and sure. I could debate with the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North whether it is really necessary. If I am right about the Valentine case, it may, as a matter of law, not be necessary. But the hon. and learned Gentleman may be right, in which case it is necessary to make it clear.
Certainly, many police forces would, I am sure, like precise clarification of their powers under the Bill, as there is doubt under the present Act. Thus, the clause may be superfluous, but it will not be harmful, in anyone's view.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has talked about doubt and uncertainty about the powers of the patrolling constable. That is certainly true, but what does he have to say to the statement that I made that, after Valentine v. Jackson, many police forces withdrew their standing instructions? In other words, much more is at stake than the powers of the patrolling constable. What is at stake is

the general supervisory right of the police to enter licensed premises when they judge it necessary—a practice that had the effect of maintaining law and order and general sobriety, and one that has been at risk ever since that case.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that. My hon. Friend left the Chamber for only a second, but as a result he did not hear me say that I know that many chief constables, following that case, withdrew their instructions to constables—as my hon. Friend described several times. There are chief constables who take the view, which I would modestly support, that that was an over-reaction to the Valentine v. Jackson decision.
However, I agree that this should be made clear. It is right that the police should have an unfettered right to enter licensed premises and it is right that the Bill should make it clear beyond doubt that they have that right where additional hours orders or children's accommodation orders are made.
For that reason, as my doubts are only over the necessity for the clause and not about the principles behind it, I should certainly be disposed to accept it. I therefore invite the House to say that if there are opponents of the Bill who wish to make contributions by way of the most bitter opposition to my Bill, it would befit the proper conduct of the House if they did not embark on long diatribes about the contents of the new clause, when, in among the nonsense, my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East and I are in total agreement.
We could then move on to New Clause 3, which gives rise to the possibility of a Second Reading debate. At this time, it might be proper for me to give notice that I have no intention of opposing that but will accept that clause as well. Thus, in what might become a heated atmosphere as the day goes on, I could demonstrate that the sponsors are responsive to sensible points, and that they do not intend the Bill to be anything other than a modest alteration of the licensing laws, subject to the strictest safeguards.
I therefore accept New Clause 1, as I believe the other sponsors will do. We welcome the opportunity—we would have welcomed it more if it had been taken in a proper and less ridiculous fashion—which debate of the new clause affords to


make the matter clear beyond reasonable doubt.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I appreciate the sympathetic concern that lies behind the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). As he said, the clause would confer on the police a right of entry into premises in respect of which an additional hours order or a children's accommodation order is in force. As I understand it, the right would be exercisable at any time during which the sale, consumption or supply of alcohol was permitted without the police having to show any special reason for seeking entry. It would be in addition to the right of entry into licensed premises under Section 186 of the Licensing Act 1964 for the purpose of preventing or detecting offences against that Act.
However, as the promoter of the Bill pointed out, the amendments of the existing law proposed in Clauses 1 and 2 do not in themselves make it necessary to confer any additional right of entry on the police. If the police have reason to suspect that offences against the 1964 Act, such as sale of alcohol to under-18s, are taking place on licensed premises at times when an additional hours order or children's accommodation order is in force, they can exercise their existing right of entry under Section 186. The need to secure observance of the law is certainly no less but also no greater when such an order is in force than it is at other times. For example, under-age drinking may occur both when a children's accommodation order is in force and at other times.
Having said that, I accept the case for widening the existing right of entry under Section 186 so that its exercise does not depend, as the Divisional Court said in the case of Valentine v. Jackson, on the police having specific reason to believe that a particular kind of offence may be committed.
If the Bill reaches the House of Lords, the Government will propose the addition to it of a provision widening Section 186 in this way. Such a provision, if added, would go far wider than the new clause now before the House. It would apply to all public houses at all hours.

The new clause would apply only to premises in respect of which an order under Clause 1 or Clause 2 has been made. Accordingly, the Government have at this stage no reason either positively to object to the new clause or to press for its insertion.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the hon. Lady saying that if the Bill were allowed to go to the House of Lords the Government would take the opportunity to sweep away the arguments that have arisen since Valentine v. Jackson and give the police extended powers in respect of licensed premises throughout permitted hours? Does she feel that this Bill would be an appropriate vehicle to help in the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has referred?

Dr. Summerskill: I should not quite put it in that way—using the Bill as an "appropriate vehicle"—but, clearly, if we have a Bill before us giving the extension of drinking which it implies and the provision of drinking facilities for children, serious consideration must be given to the role of the police, to which reference was so eloquently made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. The Bill may or may not go to the Lords but, if it does, it is only right that the Government should say that, if there is a new clause, we should prefer to have not this new clause but a better one.

Mr. Spearing: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says and agree with it, as I agree with the new clause, but is it possible to reverse the judgment in that way? The Long Title of the Bill contains these words:
Extend the permitted hours of licensed premises and registered clubs … and for purposes connected therewith.
Therefore, while I appreciate the Government's intention, would it be technically possible to proceed in that way in relation to the purposes of the Bill and not, as I think the whole House would wish, to reverse, in effect, the judgment to which we have referred?

Dr. Summerskill: I am advised that it would be possible within the Bill to make provision for the police to have powers of entry wider than those which they have at present. As I say, I do


not put it as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) did, that we would use the Bill as a vehicle, but, if we are landed with the Bill in the Lords—

Sir Bernard Braine: Oh.

Dr. Summerskill: If the Bill does have to go to the Lords with this new clause in it, we should prefer to substitute for it a better one.

Mr. Michael Neubert: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Summerskill: I am trying to finish my speech, because I know that a great many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Neubert: I am obliged to the hon. Lady, because the point that I wish to raise is directly relevant to what she is now saying. Does she recall saying in our debate on 18th June:
The Government are neutral".—[Official Report, 18th June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 992.]
In her revelation that, if the Bill reaches the Lords, the Government plan to add to it powers for the police which would put beyond all doubt the confusion which has arisen, is the hon. Lady going away from that stance of neutrality and giving assistance and support, if not to the Bill as a whole, at least to this specific provision?

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. The Government have a responsibility to see that any Bill that is imposed on the public by will of Parliament shall at least be as workable as possible. We are faced here with a new clause that involves police powers, in which the Home Office has a specific interest and responsibility. There has been some discussion of the clause, and the promoter has said that he will accept it, although he does not think that it is really necessary. While maintaining its neutral view on the principle behind the whole Bill, the Home Office view on this addition—we are discussing only an addition to the Bill, not the Bill itself and the principles behind it, on which we are neutral—is that the new clause could be improved on the lines that I have suggested.

Mr. John Cordle: Has the Minister at this stage had discussions in the Home Office on

the improvements which she suggests would be inserted in place of the clause in the event—which we hope will not occur—of it going to the House of Lords?

Dr. Summerskill: If I may speak for a fourth time, I thought that I had made the position clear in my original speech. I cannot give now the exact wording of the new clause that we should wish to insert. I am simply saying that we accept the case for widening the existing right of entry under Section 186 so that its exercise does not depend on the police having specific reason to believe that a particular kind of an offence may have been committed.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I have not the slightest desire to enter a slanging match with the hon. Member for Rushciffe (Mr. Clarke), and I should deprecate any abuse or quasi-abuse in this argument, which is on a matter of great social importance, but I took exception to his remark—I quote his words—about the "ridiculous opposition to the Bill".
The independent Advisory Committee on Alcoholism, under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Neil Kessel, of Manchester University, made a public statement to this effect:
At a time when alcohol hospital admissions are increasing by 10 per cent. each year and the health and social services are already overburdened, the Committee
—that is, the advisory committee—
opposes any relaxation in the laws and wishes its views to be widely known and taken into account.
If that is categorised as ridiculous opposition, I can only say that the hon. Gentleman's judgment is sadly at fault.
1.0 p.m.
The key issue in the new clause is to establish a proper surveillance of the new arrangements proposed in the Bill and to make it clear beyond doubt that the police have the right to exercise that surveillance and to enter premises in respect of which an order has been made under Clauses 1 or 2 of the Bill. Those who support the clause must, therefore, show some reason—indeed the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) showed good reason—why there may be dangers of abuse under the new arrangements. They must show what kind of


dangers could arise if one did not provide for adequate police powers under the new situation that would arise if the Bill became law.
The House would be wise to pay attention to an interesting "Panorama" programme on 5th July, which, with some care, examined the problems of drinking by children under age. It is clear that one of the paramount purposes of the clause is to give the police sufficient unambiguous powers and—apart from the legal judgment that has been mentioned, of which I have no special knowledge—to give them power to ensure there is no abuse and no under-age drinking. It is therefore appropriate, relevant and, I trust, in order to draw the attention of the House to some of the disturbing findings of that programme. It demonstrated the need for the clause and it appeared to show that the powers of the police as they stand are inadequate to tackle the problem.
I accept that it is a matter not only for the police but for publicans and parents. Nevertheless, the legitimate sanction of the law will have to be exercised by the police. To the extent that the problem of under-age drinking can be demonstrated to have been made out, the House should take the clause seriously.
The "Panorama" programme took the trouble to make a survey in a school. In an attempt to discover the behaviour of the children in relation to under-age drinking and the problems arising from it, some of the pupils were interviewed. One of the findings was that it was quite common to come across 12- and 13-year-olds who drink regularly and often openly in pubs. It is a serious and disturbing situation because under the present law children under 18 are not supposed to drink, although they may enter pubs at the age of 14. There was also evidence from juvenile courts, and the programme showed that magistrates are increasingly concerned that drink is a significant factor in the growing juvenile crime wave. It is a question not only of juveniles actually getting drunk but of committing offences while drunk.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East, has already drawn attention to the problems of crimes of violence, which, unfortunately, increase year by year. But

there is also the problem of stealing cars. The theft of a car is not only a disagreeable crime in itself; if the person stealing it is young, incapable, and has been drinking, a serious hazard can be caused to other road users, particularly late at night in the dark and in bad weather conditions.
The other interesting aspect that the programme revealed was that under-age drinking did not merely lead to crime; there was evidence that some youngsters went out to commit crimes of theft to obtain the money to buy drink. That is a serious aspect of the problem, and it indicates that there is a need for extra or unambiguous powers for the police to ensure that children under age do not and cannot have access to the buying of alcohol.
I understand that some landlords are upgrading their pubs—that is, in their terms—by installing discos and music with the deliberate intention of attracting young people. I am sure that that is within the law, but it creates an additional problem. The law says that young people over the age of 14 can go into pubs but that they cannot drink until they are 18. But where there is subdued lighting in a disco, with a crowd of young people, it will be very difficult to discover who is buying the drinks for whom, and who is drinking them. The problem of under-age drinking is even more difficult and serious in such discos as are springing up in some parts of London and other cities. That situation enhances the arguments for the clause and for the police to have unambiguous powers to go in and ensure that the law is observed.
It could be argued that even a policeman in a pub or disco cannot, by magic, determine the age of a buxom young lady who is having a drink. It may even be difficult to establish who bought the drink, or even who is drinking it. Nevertheless, if publicans are to get into the habit of deliberately setting out to provide an atmosphere that is congenial to young people entering pubs, drinking and mixing with their friends, it is important that society should be absolutely certain that the police have clear powers to check and to exercise surveillance over that unfortunate development.
There is, alas, evidence that many young people are making use of these


facilities in a dangerous manner. In the programme to which I have drawn attention, one young person was asked where she went drinking, and she said that she went to the disco pubs. The programme referred to a certain one, which I shall not name in the House, because it is not relevant to the argument. Asked when she had actually started to drink and had got into the habit, that young person replied "When I was 13". Another child had begun at 12, or so we were told.
We can perhaps discount a certain amount of what is said as being youthful bravado, but we cannot lightly dismiss the evidence produced by "Panorama", which has a reputation as a responsible television programme. It should disturb any hon. Member and any responsible member of our society. It adds ammunition to the case of those who believe that police powers are not adequate and must be strengthened if we are to try to stamp out the problem.
The matter is regarded as so serious that this summer there is to be the first major survey of juvenile drinking in Britain, to be undertaken by the Medical Council on Alcoholism. Schoolchildren between the ages of 13 and 16 will be asked to fill in a questionnaire. A pilot survey has taken place in, I believe, Middlesex. This indicated that 33 per cent. of boys and 30 per cent. of girls had their first drink under the age of 10, and that 3 per cent. of boys between 13 and 16 and 30 per cent. of girls in that age range drank only on special occasions.
It seems clear that the practice of drinking an excess of alcohol is extending among young people, contrary to existing law. If that is so, the proposals in the Bill to extend or relax the drinking laws—proposals that are unsound—must be offset by our giving the police additional powers to make sure, if possible, that under-age drinking is brought under control.
Another aspect that "Panorama" highlighted was the effect of drink on school attendance. There seems to be a link between the drink problem, crime, and absence from school by certain children, although I do not wish to exaggerate that. I do not wish to make lurid statements about children being mlind drunk when they should be at school,

though I believe that it happens. That is another aspect about which the House should be concerned. If the police have a clear legal right to enter pubs and check who is there, it may help to ensure that children do not bang around in pubs and even drink when they should be in full-time education.
I am sure that I shall be accused of spending too much time on these important matters if I extend these modest remarks, so I end by recalling that the "Panorama" programme drew attention to the fact that doctors specialising in the treatment of alcoholics are seeing danger signs that their patients are becoming younger and younger. It is believed that the spread of the drink habit to under-age children will inevitably accelerate the trend. Apparently, the younger someone becomes an alcoholic, the harder it is to cure the condition. We heard of a clinic at which patients in their twenties looked back with horror on the ease and innocence with which they started drinking, and now found themselves in this terrible condition, which is so difficult to cure.
I hope that the House will not take the view put forward by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe about those who are giving serious attention to the Bill and the new clauses. We are not a cranky minority that want to spoil people's pleasure. The problem of alcohol is one of the most serious social problems today. There is no easy answer. Any responsible Member should search his conscience before passing new laws that could aggravate the problem in the slightest degree. I support the clause, as a minor improvement to a Bill that is inherently unsound.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Neubert: I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield. Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that it would be unfortunate, and an unintended slander on the House, if it were suggested that hon. Members who speak so forcefully and passionately against the Bill are merely obstructionist, do not sincerely hold the views they express and do not genuinely see in the Bill dangers which may have eluded its sponsors.
Since we last discussed the Bill on 18th June it has attracted a little more interest on the Floor of the House. Hon


Members who had not previously taken part in our discussions have done so. If the full implications of the Bill or the clause were understood, there would no doubt be more contributions. Certainly, those who were here for the last debate are here again. They are unrelenting in their opposition.
Although the opponents of the Bill have been described as fantastically determined to assert a minority view, the sponsors are once again conspicuous by their almost complete absence.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend would not wish to mislead those outside the House who may not have his understanding of parliamentary procedure. He knows only too well that when there is a filibuster against a Bill those who are against it speak incessantly and those who are in favour decline to speak. My hon. Friend and those who think like him are using time as a weapon. In addition to taking time, in collaboration with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), my hon. Friend must not pretend that the silence of the supporters of the Bill is a sign of their non-existence. It is simply that every supporter who spoke would be helping the obstruction.

Mr. Neubert: I find that difficult to accept, even with my knowledge of the House, because they also serve who only sit and listen. Having been a sponsor of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Bill—which received its Third Reading this morning, I have been present every time it has been considered but have not spoken a word in its support. Having given my name and reputation to the Bill, I believed that I should be here to support my hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not accept the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that because he is alone here he has untold hundreds of supporters outside doing other work. Last time my hon. Friend claimed 100 supporters. I see that he has now been joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whose interest and enthusiasm in regard to the consumption of real ale is well known and respected by all.
That brings me to the question of who are the supporters of the Bill. It is difficult in this House to discern where support lies.

Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Gentleman examines the membership of the Committee on the Bill, he will see that most of its members who were in favour represent holiday areas. I say this not in a pejorative way, but in terms of the proportions of the Committee. I can understand why they supported the measure. Indeed, there is no reason why they should not.

Mr. Neubert: Perhaps an explanation of why those hon. Members are not present this afternoon lies in the fact that at this time of the year holiday areas are the places to be. I look desperately for some reason for the absence of those Members on this occasion. I am only too happy that the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield is present will enable my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe to have his lunch.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If my hon. Friend examines the Committee proceedings, he will see that on occasions we sat until midnight, and, indeed, into the early hours, listening to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) until he collapsed from exhaustion or was ruled out of order. If my hon. Friend had been present at some of those late-night sittings, perhaps he would not have been drawn to the Chamber today to listen to a regurgitated filibuster.

Mr. Neubert: I did not take part in these proceedings in the long hours of the night. I was not able to be in the House for the Second Reading debate and, therefore, I was not appointed to the Committee. However, I must absolve my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) from any charge of filibustering. I believe that the Bill has proceeded through the House at a speedier rate than I have as yet experienced.
I certainly hope that I shall not be charged with filibustering, because this is the first occasion on which I have had the chance to speak on the merits of the Bill, certainly on the clause that is now before us.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend mentioned the rapid progress of the Bill. Perhaps it was the rapid progress of a large number of Bills earlier today that has caused so few hon. Members to be present for this debate.

Mr. Ron Lewis: That is no excuse.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope the House will have noticed that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), a supporter of the measure, has now arrived in the Chamber.

Mr. Neubert: I am glad to welcome to the Chamber the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas). The hon. Gentleman supported a similar measure that was before the House last Session.

Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I was here earlier this morning and left the Chamber only to eat—which, I imagine, is the privilege of all hon. Members. I know that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) is interested in matters affecting the consumer. If that is the case, why cannot he give the consumer a choice in this respect?

Mr. Neubert: The clause concerns the power of the police, and the consumer has only a passive rôole in this respect. I was not suggesting that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East was not here earlier. I am glad to hear that he has been able to eat some lunch. I have not been able to do so. Such is the determination of the sponsors of the Bill that no doubt I shall have to sit here until we see this Bill put on one side.
I come to deal with the point about the power of th police. I cannot believe the police welcome this measure any more than will any other sector of the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has given evidence of support in favour of the Bill, but he has not revealed where the true support lies. I have no evidence that the police are in favour of the Bill. Certainly the National Association of Licensed House Managers is not in favour of it. If we look at page 62 of the Erroll Report, we see that 52 per cent. of those inter-

viewed were in favour of the present terminal hours. Nor does it appear that the churches support this proposal.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On the subject of the police, may I refer my hon. Friend to page 139 of the Erroll Report at paragraph 11.11:
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis was concerned to point out the difficulties of enforcing permitted hours which were strictly prescribed by law. From this premise, it was logical for the Commissioner to take the view that a considerable degree of relaxation would, to a large extent, or completely, eliminate problems of supervision over opening hours."?
The Erroll Committee obviously saw the difficulty of enforcing the present hours.

Mr. Neubert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that passage. It may be that the Commissioner holds that view. I shall be referring to the report, and it is possible to mention a different viewpoint on behalf of the police on the implications of the Bill. I am opposed to the Bill, and I believe that the new clause would have unfortunate side effects.

Sir Bernard Braine: We are debating the Bill, not the Erroll Report. Is my hon. Friend aware that for 10 years I have been the adviser to the Police Superintendents' Association for England and Wales? It is my view that senior police officers are utterly opposed to these provisions and regard them with horror.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating neither the Bill nor the Erroll Report, but New Clause 1.

Mr. Neubert: The fact that the police have chosen my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East as their adviser demonstrates their wisdom. I believe that the various powers in the clause will mean placing an additional burden on the police.

Mr. Spearing: The question of the purview of the police is important. If we look at the wording of the evidence submitted by the police, it was to the effect that the question of supervision would disappear if there were any relaxation. But the question whether any relaxation was advisable was not mentioned in the Erroll Report, and no doubt the police would have views on that matter.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Neubert: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who served on the Committee and is conversant with all the issues.
The first case I wish to cite with regard to the police and their present responsibilities for the supervision of public houses relates to the "Cooper's Arms", in my constituency, which in years gone by was a public house that could be popularly known as the "local". It was a place where people could go in the evening and enjoy a quiet drink and pleasant company. In recent years, through a succession of managers, no doubt following the policy of the company—St. George's Taverns, which owns the public house—it has been given over to younger customers.
This is a process we have seen recently as more young people have been encouraged to go into public houses. It is perhaps an indictment of local authorities and the community at large that there was a ready gap to be filled in the provision of facilities for young persons. I in no way condemn young people for being attracted to the "Bird's Nest" type of discotheque such as was installed at the "Cooper's Arms". These young people were attracted from a wide area of Greater London and Essex because they lacked anything else to do.
It was not long before the police at the Main Road police station were receiving a considerable volume of complaints. Complaints stemming from activities at public houses are not confined to complaints about young persons. It is not their behaviour alone which causes offence. But there were certain problems relating to young persons with which the police were manifestly unable to deal. Any file on this case is a thick one. It features correspondence with the owners of the public house and the local authority and a considerable amount of correspondence with the local police, who proved to be quite unable to cope with even the most obvious offences against the local community. These offences occurred not just because of the presence of the public house, which was well established and was there when most people took up residence in the area, but were aggravated and intensified by the young people. The catalogue of events will be all too familiar to anyone who has a

public house of this character in his constituency.
There were offences of rudery, abuse, urinating in alleyways, obstruction, the throwing of bottles and cans into people's gardens, loud noises and hooliganism late at night, long after the public house had closed. The police were not able to regulate the situation. So stretched were they that they were unable to make a proper judgment. I do not condemn them for the decisions they take within their resources. With their existing powers, they were not able to cope with the problems of this public house.
These matters came to a head when a woman was pushed under a bus and nearly lost her arm, indeed her life, as a result of the activities of three youths who were obviously customers of the pub and who had had more to drink than was good for them. At least one of them was under age. They appeared in court and were duly convicted and fined. Already it had proved impossible for the police, the manager and the owners of the public house to ensure that the law was upheld. If we seek to add further provisions to the law, imposing greater responsibility upon the police, we ought to take account of the extent to which they are presently able to cope. I contend that the police are not able to cope with matters adequately now.
The consequence of that serious incident was that the manager of the licensed premises was obliged to ask young persons presenting themselves at his public house to have with them a passport to prove their age. Even so, the police were confined to making the occasional call in a panda car—drawing up alongside, perhaps taking a few whelks from the whelk stall outside the public house and not regulating the public house at all.
That is only one public house of the many in my constituency. I am delighted to say that the owners were prepared to receive representations direct from the residents of the area about the activities of the young people at this public house, many of whom did not come from the area but came from all over London. This was an abuse of the hospitality of the area—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an appropriate moment to rise because


my hon. Friend is referring to the abuse of hospitality. My point of order is that he is abusing the hospitality of the House. It is quite plain now, from what has been progressing for some time, that we are being treated to a long-term filibuster on the new clause.
May I tell you why I say that? First, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has accepted the new clause, which is a matter of construction. Although he did not agree with the construction which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) put upon it, he has nevertheless accepted that it was capable of that construction. There is, therefore, nothing left to debate on the clause with regard to that matter. Yet we have been treated to a series of speeches covering a wide range of arguments. I submit that what we have been listening to is clearly filibustering.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: The hon. and learned Member has only just come in.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I submit that this action is outside the terms of order. If I am right, I would respectfully submit that Mr. Speaker has the duty and the right to say that this must not continue and so to rule, so that we may make progress.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that both you and your deputies in the Chair have been keeping an eagle eye on the debate. Only a short time ago, before the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) entered the Chamber, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the Bill's sponsor, was called to order for speaking outside the terms of the new clause. It is of vital importance in a Bill which deals with a fundamental aspect of the law.
I ask your indulgence so that we can go reasonably wide on the clause and examine every nuance and aspect. The House has a good tradition of Members being able to come here freely and air their views within the terms of order. Some of us are much concerned that the proponents of the Bill seek to justify this measure on the basis that any criticism

of it is an abuse of free speech. That is not the case.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) had been here during the debate—he has only just arrived—he would have known that I intervened several times to ensure that the debate was kept to order. The fact that the sponsors of the Bill accept the new clause is neither here nor there. There may be some who wish to oppose it. As long as hon. Members wish to speak and as long as no one moves the closure, I must call them. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) was certainly not filibustering. He was speaking to the point.

Mr. Neubert: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, because I can assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) that, far from speaking outside the terms of the clause and far from accepting the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is prepared to accept the clause, I am seeking to argue against it on the ground that the police are already overstretched. If my hon. and learned Friend had done me the favour of following the development of my argument rather than discussing procedural manoeuvres with his hon. Friend, he would have appreciated that. The police do not have the resources to accept these additional responsibilities and are unlikely to welcome the burden that the Bill seeks to place on them.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman really keeping a straight face when he says that? As I understand it, the burden of his speech has been about the need for greater police surveillance of licensed houses. After 20 minutes or so, will he accept that he is adducing completely bogus grounds for opposing the new clause moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), whom he supports, bearing in mind that in about an hour we shall probably have a bogus Division, in which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will probably not vote for his clause? There is a great deal left on the Notice Paper that we can discuss intelligently and air all points of view on the Bill, with little risk of its reaching the statute book. Will the hon. Gentleman forbear from these peculiar procedural devices


and allow us to get on with those parts of the Bill that remain to be discussed?

Mr. Neubert: I shall hesitate to give way to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe again if he describes my contribution to the debate as bogus and lacking in intellectual quality. I contend that what I have to say is extremely relevant, and it is born of my own experience in the two and a half years since February 1974, when I first had the great fortune to be elected to this House. I realise, of course, that my experience is not as great as that of many other right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber, including the luminaries on the Treasury Bench, but I speak from experience, and I have cited one case in which the police were unable to implement the law to the satisfaction of law-abiding members of the community in my constituency.
I was diverted, and I want to give the House the remainder of the facts of this case and not be sidetracked. When the owners of the "Cooper's Arms" were confronted with public opinion and the offence caused by the activities of young people in this public house—not the very young children who would be allowed in under the terms of the Bill, but young people in terms of the present restrictions on age—they yielded, and the pub has now reverted to the kind of local that it was before, where young people would not be encouraged to come in, and I have no doubt that the police are mightily relieved that they can cross that one off their list and have the telephone ringing less often from residents in the vicinity.
The next case which I wish to cite concerns the "Sun" public house in London Road, Romford, where a nasty incident took place. It was the first such incident to occur in my constituency. It was a race relations incident, in which young coloured boys came into the public house from another area and, no doubt following violent drinking, were involved in a very unpleasant case of assault outside the public house. Once again the burden on the police was increased by the fact that young people were able to have this right of access to drink.
The third case occurred within the last two weeks, again where young people were involved in a brawl, which eventually led to stabbings and lacerations.

The son of one of my constituents was badly injured in the incident.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are looking my way and wondering whether I am exhausting my point. I hasten on, because I wish to speak from experience. I am not speaking from the cloistered towers of the Palace of Westminster, believing this would be a modest and important piece of social reform. I am speaking on behalf of my constituents, who have found these problems to be very practical ones, and I am speaking on behalf of the police, who have more than enough work to do in contending with the more important demands made upon them.
1.45 p.m.
I come now to another aspect of the responsibilities of the police, which is that of maintaining licensed hours. In the centre of Romford there is a very well-established hostelry called the "White Hart". It has ample facilities for dancing and dining and is also a very successful public house, with a discotheque. It is a very attractive place for young people. But again, when I have complaints about rowdy behaviour noise and disturbance after closing hours and I write to the police, they make it clear to me that they have not the manpower available to supervise the orderly closing of each public house in the constituency. This is a real problem and, to the extent that this Bill adds to the problem, we ought to consider carefully what we are doing.

Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is generating a bogus problem. What evidence has he, in all reasonable conscience, that the police need to supervise closely the closing of the majority of public houses in his constituency? They do not. Would he care to give us the statistics of prosecutions for after-hours drinking in his constiuency? I think that he will find that he can count them on the fingers of one hand.

Mr. Neubert: Unwittingly, the hon. Gentleman is adding strength to my argument. The fact that there are not these prosecutions and the fact that he does not understand the need for the police to regulate the present law indicate that he is not aware of the greater problem that this clause will present.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) aware that I am in possession of letters from the representatives of licensed house managers in every part of the Kingdom that reinforce all the arguments that he is advancing? In order to help my hon. Friend, may I quote from one of them? It is from licensed house managers in the Greater London region. The letter reads:
I would like to confirm that in this Greater London region there are already truly appalling problems in certain areas where the licensees need all the support possible of the police, this with particular reference to closing times. A large number of assaults occur then.
I add only one other observation, which is that I had a similar letter from the regional organiser of the licensed house managers in the North-East, from which area the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) comes.

Mr. Neubert: I am grateful, as always, for my hon. Friend's help in these matters and for the evidence that he cites. I am well aware that I speak merely from my own constituency experience, whereas he has contacts throughout the country on the implications of the Bill.
By citing the four cases within my own limited experience I think that I can justifiably claim that there is an unseen implication in the clause—an implication that may not have been appreciated by the sponsors of the Bill but which no doubt is understood by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, who moved the clause, which is an unsatisfactory compromise that he has to accept because of his opposition to the Bill and its provisions as a whole.
I have cited four cases. Obviously I could go on at length, but I do not wish to weary the House or to be accused of speaking to the point at too great length. I think that the four cases that I have cited give some support to arguments about the practical difficulties that arise—

Mr. Lomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the 35 minutes for which he has been speaking, I think that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) has bored us sufficiently. I put it to you that the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) moving the closure?

Mr. Lomas: Yes.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and negatived.

Mr. Neubert: If this clause were added to the Bill, it would involve an added burden on the police. The Under-Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, has suggested that she would be in favour of expanding the present powers of the police to enable them to enter premises. I have made it clear that at present the police have problems in ascertaining the ages of persons in public houses and in connection with the hours of drinking, and in relation to the first of them I have already mentioned an incident in which a person under age had obviously been served with drink.
If the problems of the police are difficult now, with fixed hours prevailing, they would surely be increased by having different hours for different public houses. It is part of the sponsors' case that the provision for extension hours is optional. Surely that is being naïve. Those who have experience in business will understand that licensed premises are competitive, like any others, and that most people need to fall into line. No doubt there would be some irregularities, and the police would not be able to know the precise licensing hours for a particular public house unless they had been informed in detail. To that extent the burden carried by the police would be increased.
The fact that children would be allowed in licensed premises until the hour of 8 o'clock, after which time they would have to leave, means that there would be an irregularity in opening and closing hours with which the police would have to contend. At present the police can contend with these matters from the outside, but as a result of the provisions of the clause they would have to enter into licensed premises at different times not only to check that children under age were cleared out at 8 o'clock but to see that they were not being served with drink, which would be in breach of the provisions of the Bill.
As I have said, the police regulate the present law mainly from the outside,


although that cannot always be possible in the case of young persons. However, the police can observe young persons going in and out of licensed premises. Under the terms of the clause, however, they would have to enter premises and check the activities within them at all hours if they were to ensure that the law was being upheld. That would be a considerable burden on the police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe referred to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his alleged views on the Bill, but I shall give some indication of the problems that are already pressed upon the police by the whole question of drunkenness and the licensing of clubs and other premises. As at 31st December 1975, no fewer than 3,020 clubs were operating under registration certificates. There were 597 operating under justices' licences. I am speaking of clubs in London, part of which I represent. No doubt other Members will have similar evidence for other parts of the country.
Apart from the clubs that I have mentioned, at the end of the year there were 9,381 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises; there were 2,954 with restaurant, residential or combined restaurant and residential licences; and there were 4,133 off-licence premises. I refer to these figures because I believe they should be considered in relation to police recruitment. The strength of the Metropolitan force at the end of the year was 21,420, leaving an overall deficiency of 5,208. The authorised establishment remained at 26,628 throughout the year. It is clear from those two sets of figures, first, that the police are under-staffed and, by definition, over-stretched and, secondly, that the burden pressed upon them by properly licensed premises is already too great.
To that situation must be added the problem of increased drunkenness. The Commissioner reports:
During the year 40,583 persons (37,216 men and 3,367 women) were proceeded against for drunkenness or drunkenness with aggravation, and 34.997 of these were convicted. These totals were respectively 610 and 1,451 fewer than those for 1974. In addition, 685 persons proceeded against for other offences were also charged with drunkenness resulting in 616 convictions. Persons prosecuted for being under the influ-

ence of drink or drugs when driving or in, charge of vehicles are not included in the figures above.
I now turn to the aspect of the Bill that is most alarming to people such as myself who oppose it—namely, the age group of those involved in drunkenness. We must bear in mind that the Bill provides for a reduction in the age of children who go into licensed premises. Of the convictions for drunkenness and drunkenness with aggravation, 3,158 involved persons within the 18 to 20 age group and 665 involved persons under the age of 18 years. This is all part of a trend.
In the appendix to the Commissioner's report the general pattern of drunkenness in which the Metropolitan Police have to contend is set out. We can see that over the past 18 years, in which time, ironically, the population of Londan has declined each successive year—it being 8,420,000 in 1965 and 7,597,000 in 1975—the number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness has increased. In 1965 the number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness was 3·9 per 1,000 of the population. In 1975 it had risen to 5·3. Apart from the increase in violent crimes and many other offences that are much more serious than drunkenness, with which the police have to deal, they are having to accept an increased burden of responsibility in relation to drunkenness.
It is my contention, and that of my colleagues who feel the same way as myself, that the Bill will lead to increased drunkenness and to the necessity for the police to go into licensed premises. That is an unfortunate consequence. It may well be that if we are to have the Bill we must have a clause that acts as a safeguard. However, I should much prefer not to see the clause or the Bill.

Mr. Cordle: My hon. Friend is dealing carefully and correctly with this issue as a Member who represents part of the metropolis, but there is a special problem in other constituencies, especially those that include holiday areas. At a certain time of year those areas attract anything up to 1 million visitors. My hon. Friend makes the point about the police being over-stretched. It is quite impossible for them thoroughly to supervise the clubs and hotels. In that respect my hon. Friend has made his point


thoroughly, and I accept it. That is why I support the clause.

Mr. Neubert: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. If I were to imagine where support for the Bill might lie, I might conclude, as has already been suggested by some hon. Members that it would lie in resort constituencies. However, my hon. Friend represents such a constituency and he is of a different view. I am glad that he has been able to confirm that the problem I am describing in terms of London is shared by areas outside London. That is something that does not surprise me, but it is good to have it on the record.
If anyone doubts the implications for the police stemming from increased drinking, he need only turn to any newspaper virtually any day of the week. I cite the connection between crime and drink, which involves the police in endeavouring to ensure that under-age children do not drink more than is wise. In today's paper there is a report of two youths aged 17—in other words, under the present legal age—who were obviously worse for drink, who played a
'horrifying game' of bombing motorway traffic with 101h and 201b stones from a bridge.
2.0 p.m.
The judge said:
More dastardly conduct it is difficult to imagine. It is only a miracle you did not kill anybody. Drink in a large part seems to have been the cause of this misconduct—too much money causing misbehaviour in many like you today.
That obviously involved great hazards not only to the public but to the police in bringing those youths to justice. That merely adds to their problems.
There is a longer-term damaging implication of this clause, which ought to be taken into account by the House before coming to a decision upon it. For the first time, police would be involved in going into licensed premises. At best, public houses are places of great pleasure, congeniality and enjoyment. When they are run well and not abused, they create a happy atmosphere.
We are now suggesting, in consequence of the Bill, that the police should go into public houses in the course of their regular rounds on the beat. That would have a damaging effect on community rela-

tions, particularly between the police and young people, because of the necessity of the police ensuring that young persons under age were not drinking or being served with drink.
I have here the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for 1975. We must consider the efforts being made by the police to liaise with young people. It would be unfortunate if, as a result of this clause, the police had to play the heavy-handed authority in exercising the law by checking the ages of children. This point has not been answered by the proponents of the Bill. I refer to children of any age, down to toddler age, being able to witness such matters. By having to check on the ages of children, the police will alienate them against authority. It would go against the work that the police are trying to do.
The paragraph headed "Schools liaison" states:
Each force now has officers who specialise in schools liaison work"—

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, although really he owes the rest of the House an apology. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman now to go off on a long and discursive exercise into relations between the police and young people, visits to schools, and statistics about this, that, and the other? I submit that that does not relate to the new clause.

Mr. Speaker: As I followed the hon. Gentleman's argument, he was opposing the right of constables to enter licensed premises, because it would bring them into disagreement with young people. I think that is very relevant to the argument.

Mr. Neubert: I am again grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. You are obviously following my argument. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. I resent the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East intervening at that point in my speech and suggesting that it is irrelevant. That would be one consequence of the police having to go into public houses to ensure that the law in this respect was enforced.
I do not share the naivety of the sponsors of the Bill that it is an absolute and important safeguard against children under age being served by a publican.

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. The new clause does not relate to the power of the police to go into a pub; it relates to the question whether that power needs to be extended in some way.

Mr. Neubert: I am not sure that that intervention adds anything except to the length of time of this discussion.

Mr. Mike Thomas: That would not be difficult.

Mr. Neubert: The clause seeks to provide a necessary compromise safeguard to the circumstances that will be created if the Bill becomes an Act. There would be an additional requirement on the police to implement those provisions of the Bill that require children under the relevant age not to be served.
I do not share the apparent naivety of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, because I believe that publicans, like other hardworking, often self-employed, people, are sometimes tempted to overlook the letter of the law. They should not be exposed to that temptation. If they have a chance of selling something to a person under 18, they may often take it. That was certainly the situation regarding the "Cooper's Arms" until those concerned were forced to realise that upholding the law had some necessary benefits.
I return to the point about the police wishing to establish better relations with young people, and how those relations would be prejudiced and injured by this clause. Again, in the paragraph under "Schools liaison" Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary reports that
In the case of primary school children the liaison is intended to encourage young children to regard police officers as approachable members of the community to whom they can turn for help.
I stress
approachable members of the community to whom they can turn for help.
If their first experience of the police is in the happy, relaxed and, one hopes, carefree atmosphere of a public house, where they see the arm of the law stopping them from doing what they seem to regard as natural, the close relationship that the police are trying to encourage will be greatly endangered.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the anomalies would be greater because, under the terms of the Bill, the publican would be prohibited from selling children anything at all? That would make matters even more difficult for the young people concerned.

Mr. Neubert: Yes. A young person cannot see any harm in buying a packet of crisps. I am not a killjoy in these matters. My son enjoys a packet of crisps and half a pint of beer with the best of us. I am concerned only to keep children out of an atmosphere that I believe would be deleterious to them.
Perhaps I may misquote the famous Jesuit priest, who said "Give me a child under five and I have him for life." Under this Bill, to take a young child into licensed premises and to feed him on the atmosphere of such a place is to lose him for all time. Some may have the maturity to develop out of it and to maintain a balanced judgment about what they should do, but others may be swallowed in the waves of alcoholism to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley referred.
The police hope to give older children a better understanding of the rôle of the police in society. I ask hon. Members to consider whether the new concept of the policeman in society will be aided by the necessity to go into pubs to ensure that children under age are not being served with drink or anything else.
There are many problems already. The report to which I have referred goes on:
Regrettably, in some areas the initial response from older children is sometimes one of suspicion but such is the expertise of the liaison officers that they are usually able to break down this veneer of hostility and win the confidence of their audience.'
That is an important point.
Over the years many problems have arisen from a growing alienation towards authority. From a young age, children are encouraged to believe that the police are their enemies rather than their friends. At that age, they are unable to understand that the buttressing of law and order is a necessary protection for a society in which they can prosper and flourish. If they are confronted by a uniformed police officer entering licensed premises at all hours, checking on them, they will reject and have no respect for


him, because he will represent an unnecessary intrusion into what they think is natural.
Finally, I shoud like to underline the relevance of the need for constables to go into licensed premises. Although I am opposed to it, on the ground that the police are over-stretched and have not the resources to cope, I can understand that if the Bill is to go through there must be such a safeguard. In this respect I should like to quote from a report published in June, which has not so far been cited, on the disruptive pupil in the secondary school.
The report said:
Children are arriving at school unable to work after bouts of lunch-time drinking. Even 11-year-olds have shown signs of drunkenness, and some children are arriving with hangovers at morning assembly.
It is not suggested by the report, or at least the extract from which I have quoted as it appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 28th June, that this is in the main happening by children passing themselves off as being older than they are—in other words, breaching the law. It is mainly because of greater access by children to drink in supermarkets and elsewhere. None the less, the police have to ensure that the trend is not aggravated.
The authors of the report say:
Easy access to drink is one of the roots of the problem. This can be quickly and simply remedied by closing loopholes in the laws governing the sale of drink. For instance, drink should not be displayed on open shelves in supermarkets.
The police would need to ensure that the new provisions allowing greater access to drink were implemented. That is in the reverse direction to that in which the authors of the report wish to go, but one must make the plea for a safeguard.
I end my case on the clause by saying that I share all the anxieties that have been expressed by my colleagues on both side of the House about the implications of the Bill. Although I believe that this is an unwarranted, unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable extra burden on the police, for whom I have a great deal of respect and whose activities I should prefer to see directed to dealing with much more important and serious crimes, it may be that if there is any chance of the Bill becoming law it will be necessary to support the clause. My decision on that, how-

ever, will have to await the end of the debate.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I think we should all have listened with more interest and feeling to the speech of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) had we not felt that not only was every point made in one direction capable of being made in the other but that on another occasion, perhaps for procedural reasons, he might have chosen to make the points in a different way and for different reasons. I leave it at that and await with some interest a division in the ranks of that tiny band of fanatics who have opposed the Bill in the most determined way throughout its passage through Parliament. I await the bogus Division at the end of the debate to see whether my thoughts are true.
It is a depressing fact, and a sad commentary on the procedures of the House of Commons, that, when hon. Members who oppose a measure of this kind have filibustered, fought, manœuvred and argued in the way that we have seen on this Bill, the supporters of the measure feel unable to stand up and take part in the debate without fearing that the time they take will in itself wreck the measure that they seek to support.
If one looks back on the discussions on the clause and on other matters and sees the imbalance in the argument, one realises that it is solely because hon. Members like myself, who have supported the Bill throughout, have felt unable to speak even on matters of relatively minor importance, and even for a short period, because that would be exploited ruthlessly by those who oppose the Bill.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I resent my hon. Friend's comment that he never attempted to speak. The plain fact, of which the House should be aware, is that throughout the Committee stage my lion. Friend made no attempt to speak other than to raise points of order. For him now to suggest that he never had an opportunity to speak is a gross abuse of his position.

Mr. Thomas: I listened with care to what my hon. Friend said. He will know that I complain of no lack of opportunity. The opportunity was there. Indeed, I am taking advantage of the opportunity now. All I complain of is that, because of the activities of my hon.


Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and their friends, those who support the Bill were constrained from taking the opportunity to speak. That is the sole basis of my complaint.
In considering the clause—and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will be relieved to hear that I am returning to it—my feeling is that we have heard some interesting arguments, not all perhaps as straightforward as they might at first appear, and not all of them put forward for straightforward reasons. Nevertheless, if we are talking about an increase in the powers of the police and the possibility of their supervising public houses it may be the case—I am not dogmatic about this—that under the provisions of the Bill there would be a need for less police supervision rather than more. I am sure that that will please the hon. Member for Romford, because I sympathise with the point that he made—although I should have sympathised more had he made the point at less length—about stretching police manpower and so on.
2.15 p.m.
Why should it be that either an additional hours order or a children's accommodation order if granted should require us to give to the police the additional powers set out in Clause 1? Additional hours orders do two things. First, they allow publicans who wish to do so to apply for additional hours up to the maximum of opening in the morning at 10 a.m. and closing at midnight. The second thing that the Bill does is to lay down a clear procedure for applying for such orders. The publican must want them and the justices have to grant them, and the facilities normally available to the police under the whole licensing process that we propose to follow would still be available. If additional powers were necessary, and if there were additional problems, there would be a natural occasion on which to raise the matter, and that would be in representations to the justices at the annual licensing bench or any interim occasion if there was a necessity for it.
I think we all deplore the way in which some publicans are from time to time subjected to abuse and assault, as

are bus conductors and ticket collectors on the Underground, as well as various other groups, but I am not aware—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—of having received any representations either locally or nationally from the police against what is proposed in the Bill on the ground suggested by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. On no occasion since March 1975 when I first became concerned with this measure have I received any representations from the police on the matters raised today.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—I suppose that by now he is my hon. Friend—quoted perfectly accurately from the Erroll Report. The burden of the police evidence to the Erroll Committee was that the present licensing laws were the cause of a large part of the problem. That is the simple fact that the opponents of the measure seem unwilling or unable to grasp.
The reason why the existing laws cause trouble is simple. It is because if we ask people to behave in a manner that they regard as oppressive and unreasonable they will react unreasonably. If we ask a man who sees no good reason why he should do so to down his pint in two or three minutes and dash out of the public house at 10.30 p.m., we must on occasion expect that he will not be very happy about that because he thinks that the law is an ass. He thinks that the restrictions placed on him by Parliament are unreasonable and, being a human being, from time to time he takes it out on the chap who is standing opposite him ringing the bell.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Mr. Ron Lewis rose—

Mr. Thomas: I do not applaud that happening and I should not encourage it, but the law creates the difficulty for the police. The genuine representations that the police have made are to the effect that they would welcome the change proposed by the Bill.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The argument that my hon. Friend is using would apply at the other end of the scale. Even if an extention of hours were granted until 12 o'clock, the argument that applies at half-past 10 could apply at the later hour. I suggest that my hon. Friend's argument does not hold water.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is an absolutist. There are no absolutes. It is my judgment that people would regard it as less unreasonable to be asked to leave at 11.30 p.m. or midnight than to be asked to go home at 10.30 p.m. or 11 o'clock. That is a simple matter of degree. One can make one's own judgments. No doubt there would still be people who would resent having to go home if closing time were 4 o'clock in the morning.
All we are arguing is that to allow the possibility of an extension of hours in appropriate circumstances, with all the necessary controls—justices of the peace and so on—attached to it, would not necessarily generate any extra problems. Indeed, it might well generate fewer problems because more people would regard it as reasonable to be asked to drink up at a later time.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend said that he thought the police would welcome or had welcomed the provisions of the Bill, but he did not specify the evidence. Is he basing that statement on the Erroll findings or on something else which he has received but to which he has not referred?

Mr. Thomas: I base my statement on two grounds. First, there has been ample opportunity since March 1975, when the Bill was first promoted, for the police to make their views clear and well known if they held the position which hon. Members allege. They have not done so on any occasion to my knowledge. Secondly, I rely on the Erroll Report, which, after all, is the last authoritative source we have in this matter. The police view there was clear. They supported my argument that to change the hours in the way that the Bill suggests should be made possible would be likely to diminish rather than increase their problems.
I turn now to the question of children, examining whether children's accommodation orders if granted should lead us to want to give additional powers to the police of the sort encompassed in New Clause 1. What would these orders do? They would allow publicans who wished to do so to apply to the justices to have a suitable room set aside for family use—the phrase "family room" has been written into the Bill at the behest

of those who have expressed reservations. A publican could apply to have that room licensed upon to 8 o'clock for those under the age of 14. Those under the age of 18 in such a room would not be permitted to purchase anything.
As the hon. Member for Rushcliffe has adequately explained, the only reason why a requirement that such children should be accompanied is not written into the Bill is that it would be difficult to define in law and would place unreasonable burdens on licensed house managers, for Whom the hon. Member for Essex, South-East purports to speak, prove cases of accompaniment. We have chosen the simple device of leaving the publican total discretion, as it exists at the moment, as to whom he would allow in his premises.
That would add to the simple provision that exists now. Under the Bill, no one under the age of 18 may buy anything, including crisps, in a family room. I sympathise with the extravagant living that the hon. Member for Romford apparently allows his son. But in the family room there would be no question of a person under the age of 18 being able to buy anything at all. These two factors combined would, in effect, mean that children had to be accompanied in that room, because if they were not the publican would exclude them on the simple ground that they were not able to purchase anything. That is surely a simple and far less complicated provision, and it is motivated by the best intentions.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The licensed house managers in the North-East are totally opposed to the Bill. They are not pleased at the prospect of being faced by unaccompanied children.

Mr. Thomas: I am in the North-East as often as the hon. Gentleman is and I know perfectly well, from talking to licensed house managers in Newcastle, that this supposed unanimity of opposition to the Bill and concern about it is not there. I am told that meetings of that organisation are badly attended and that licensed house managers take their own views. The manager of my local, the "Corner House" in Newcastle, who is a member of the national association, was on television last weekend making the reverse point to that made by those who


purport to represent him in this House. The view of licensed house managers is by no means unanimous, so let us have less of the claim that it is.
I find the suggestion that the proposals in the Bill would in some way add to the burdens of police supervision quite extraordinary. In considering the question of children's accommodation orders, we know that the present problem is not to do with families who already sit outside a pub with their kids on a summer afternoon or evening. The real problem comes from a relatively few city centre pubs, and it has to do with the numbers of children between the ages of 14 and 18 to whom the publican either has to turn a blind eye or has difficulty in differentiating. Nobody proposes that the law in that respect should be changed. There could be some case for changing it, but it has nothing to do with children's accommodation orders. The problem is there now, and the Bill would not change the age of drinking to below 18 or the age of access to bars other than the family room from the age of 14.
It is a travesty of the normal procedures of democracy in this country and of the normal courtesies of the House to read again and again claptrap about children running around in bars and pubs at will and rampant. Nothing in the Bill proposes any such thing. There is nothing in what the Bill says, or in what we have said or done, that could lead anyone to think that such proposals were included.

Mr. Hooley: Had my hon. Friend been here earlier, he would have heard the point made that, while it may be that, licensed house managers are not unanimous, the inevitable effect of competition would mean that once one of them adopted this new idea the others would be dragged in for fear of losing their trade. Whether the managers are unanimous or not is beside the point. Some of them would be forced into what they regard as an undesirable practice.

Mr. Thomas: That is not the view of managers I have talked to, but in any case it is irrelevant to the argument. Whether a number of pubs or only one did this in an area, the argument has to be whether it would create difficulty for the police. I do not see how additional hours orders could do so. I believe that

additional hours orders would diminish rather than increase the closing time problem.
I want to quote from today's Evening Standard on the question of the family rooms and the effect they would be likely to have on the need for police supervision. The writer of the leading article is no doubt well acquainted with the arguments of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and his Friends, because he writes:
Unjustly, the pub is still regarded by some as a sort of Demon's citadel, where Alcohol and Excess keep their joint seat. True long ago, the image is wildly inaccurate now for all but the temperance campaigner. There are occasional exceptions, but the typical pub is the greatest control over drinking the community has.
There is a lot of drinking in the average pub but little drunkenness. Apart from a table of regulations and laws, the place is a house with a host and usually a family of regulars. Ill manners and trouble-making are not often tolerated for long … Women, now familiar where once their presence, except behind the bar, was unimagined, have had much to do with this.
That is, the better atmosphere in pubs.
The writer goes on to say that the National Council on Alcoholism, which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East represents,
may be underestimating children if it doubts that they would have an even greater effect.
Already, in those pubs with gardens open to families, it appears that they do. Father is less likely to soak himself in beer if son is whirling about on a swing a few yards away. And, not surprisingly, the proposal to allow children inside the doors has aroused some of its fiercest opposition from fathers who want to keep somewhere to escape undisturbed with a few pints. The fact that they are on that side might suggest to the council that it should be, for a trial period anyway, on the other.
I support that view very much. I believe, like the hon. Member for Romford, that the police have a great number of better things to do than keeping detailed supervision of every aspect of the present licensing laws that most members of the public regard as unreasonable.
2.30 p.m.
The friction that the hon. Gentleman talks about between the police and the community is generated most at the point at which the police are asked to enforce and police unreasonable laws. Most people who enter public houses regard with resentment the present closing time


arrangements and would welcome a wider flexibility. Most families resent and are upset by the fact that they cannot take their children into what seems to them reasonable rooms on occasion. Relaxations on both those points would reduce friction between police and community. Rather than make it more difficult to police our present licensing laws, it would make it easier. On those grounds, I cannot see that the new clause adds anything of substance to the Bill.

Mr. Cordle: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) strongly supports the Bill. He said that those who oppose it are a lot of fanatics. I think he is entirely wrong. The police are strongly opposed to the Bill.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Mr. Mike Thomas indicated dissent.

Mr. Cordle: The magistrates as a whole are opposed to it—

Mr. Mike Thomas: No.

Mr. Cordle: —as are youth clubs, Churches, parents and large numbers of people in the drinking industry itself.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Now that he has given that list, perhaps the hon. Member will produce some evidence to support just one of those assertions.

Mr. Cordle: Mr. Cordle rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend permit me? Is he aware that the leaders of every Church in the country have sent me a message saying that they are utterly and completely opposed to the Bill? That was conveyed to the Standing Committee. The only exception was the Anglican Church. However, I am glad to say that the Bishop of Norwich sent me a message only yesterday in order to complete the circle. So the hon. member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is completely and utterly wrong and my hon. Friend is right. The opposition to the Bill is widespread and it is determined.

Mr. Cordle: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman attended the Anglican Church or the churches of other denominations in his constituency he would realise what opposition there is to the Bill. Those of us who oppose the Bill

believe that children need protection and that they are particularly vulnerable. I am the father of four teenage children, and I know something of the dangers they face. What is particularly puzzling to me and what I have had a great deal of difficulty explaining to my constituents is why a Member from my party should ever introduce such a Bill. Those of us who have great admiration for my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hesitate to, interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I would remind him that we are dealing with New Clause 1.

Mr. Cordle: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but may I finish that point? When my hon. Friend the Member for Rushclitfe (Mr. Clarke) speaks from the Front Bench about small businesses, we all greatly admire the way he does so, but for a man of his calibre to introduce a Bill of this type is asking for serious trouble.
Obviously there must be police surveillance. 'The Bill deals with the question of young people and children being taken into public houses and clubs accompanied by adults. That is insufficient. A child should at least be with his mother or father. There is little difference between a boy or girl of 18—technically an adult—and a younger person. That in itself strongly supports the case for police surveillance.
We all appreciate that children take up challenges and look upon the idea of going into a public house as a great prank. Many will try to get into the bars. I know of cases in which some have been able to get into strip shows and been subjected to that kind of questionable entertainment. I strongly support that part of the new clause that deals with these matters.

Mr. Weitzman: I did not have the doubtful pleasure of being a member of the Committee, which I understand sat until late hours, so I did not enjoy the long speeches made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). However, I have enjoyed them today and I am in entire agreement with his views. The new clause is vital if there is any question of the Bill's becoming law. I heard what the Minister said, but we are


debating whether the Bill should become law. Therefore, such a clause is essential.
I should like to justify that statement by quoting from the Errol Report. It has been quoted already, but it is important to quote it again so that hon. Members understand what we are dealing with now. The report said:
The sale of intoxicating liquor is not like that of any other commodity. It is not necessary to delve into history in order to establish that alcohol has effects on human behaviour which may be socially undesirable. The patterns of anti-social behaviour embrace a whole range of reactions, from minor brawls to violent crimes committed under the influence of drink.
There can be no truer summary of the position. Yet here is an lion. Member putting forward a Bill that will increase those risks.
Clearly, the result of the Bill, if not its underlying purpose, will be an increase in the consumption of alcohol. More than anything else there will be dangerous effects from allowing children into family rooms, or whatever they are called. I am horrified at the prospect of a Bill like this being placed on the statute book.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Has my hon. and learned Friend noted that not one sponsor of the Bill is in the Chamber to hear him speak?

Mr. Weitzman: I am not surprised; they are ashamed. The effect of the Bill is such that it should be resisted as strongly as possible.
I intervened in the nice, delightful, long speech of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, when he was giving examples of the evils that result, and when he referred to the case of Valentine v. Jackson. I took the trouble to consult the authorities on the matter. It had been suggested that the new clause was unnecessary because the police already had sufficient powers. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) seemed to incline to that view, although I interrupted him to read the headnote of the judgment.
I want the House to realise the exact position in law and, as a result, how vital is the new clause. The judgment in the case of Valentine v. Jackson was

delivered as late as 1972. It is reported in 1972(1) All-England Law Reports, at page 90. The headnote reads:
A police constable cannot demand admission to licensed premises under Section 186(1) of the Licensing Act 1964 unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence is being or is about to be committed on those premises.
I turn to the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery. He quoted the words of Mr. Justice Cave in another case, which was reported as long ago as 1897:
before the occasion for the exercise of that power can arise, he must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that circumstances exist, or are about to exist, constituting a violation of some provision of the Acts. The particular violation which it was here suggested that he was desirous of preventing or detecting was that of excessive drinking. But there was nothing which could reasonably lead him to suspect that the members of the lodge were drinking to excess. It would be monstrous to suggest that the mere fact that persons are singing and playing in a room in licensed premises points to the inference that they are getting drunk. If it had been shown that members of the lodge had been seen to leave the room in a condition of intoxication, that would have been another matter; but there was nothing of the kind here. The recorder seems to have thought it was enough for the constable to say that he wanted to enter the room for the purpose of enforcing the law. I canont agree.
Then the judgment deals with further cases, which are rather important. It deals with the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Goddard in a case that threw doubt on the previous judgment that I have quoted and in which he said:
Therefore, the police have a right to go in to see whether or not there is any likelihood of an offence being committed. That is their right, and, therefore, it is their duty if they consider that circumstances call for investigation.
That might be thought to throw doubt on the point that I have been making, but the learned Lord Chief Justice went on to say:
Those words again, when taken in isolation, lend some force to the argument for the respondent, because although qualified to the extent that I have indicated, in that Lord Justice Goddard referred to circumstances calling for investigation, yet it might be said that standing alone they support the view that there is an unqualified right of entry as long as the police officer is acting bona fide in what he belives to be in the interests of preventing or detecting the commission of an offence. For my part, in that state of the authorities I think this court should take the view more favourable to the subject, and


therefore sustain the view of Mr. Justice Cave in the 1887 case. I think that pending any change in the law on the part of Parliament, we ought to take the view that Mr. Justice Cave's judgment is still the law in this respect, and Inspector Bates in this instance did not disclose to the justices the necessary prerequisite of suspicion before demanding entry to the appellant's premises.
The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.
On the law as it stands it is perfectly clear that unless New Clause 1 is written into the Bill the police can enter only in the circumstances that I have stated, on suspicion that an offence is being committed or is about to be committed.
2.45 p.m.
Given a Bill of this kind, which is designed to extend hours and to allow children to enter licensed premises—that is the greatest extension—it is surely vital to empower the police to enter licensed premises at any time and to see that the law is being observed. The new clause very properly sets out the right in this way—
A constable may enter any premises in respect of which an order under section 1 or section 2 of this Act has been made at any time during which the sale, consumption or supply of intoxicating liquor is permitted and this power shall be in addition to the powers conferred by virtue of section 186 of the principal Act.
I have listened to many speeches today. I have also read a good deal of the report of the proceedings in Standing Committee and of the proceedings in the House on the last occasion. I shall not elaborate on arguments that have already been advanced. They are so strong as clearly to show the evil that might be created by the Bill, if it were to be enacted—which I certainly hope it will not be. If there is the slightest danger of its being enacted, I hope that the clause will be added to the Bill as a protection to children and others.

Mr. Beith: I was very glad to hear the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). I wish that he had been a member of the Standing Committee. Had he been so, his expertise might usefully have been brought to bear when other issues, such as that of unaccompanied children, were discussed.

That is an omission that we cannot repair now.
I shall not detain the House for long on this new clause, because there are other matters on which important arguments are to be deployed.
I register my surprise that the Bill should ever have come out of Committee without this aspect having been adequately dealt with. I also register the importance I attach to ensuring that there is full police supervision of the premises upon which these changes will be inflicted, as inflicted they may well be.
Let nobody suppose that it will be simply a voluntary matter for the publican or licensee or tenant to decide that he would like to have a family room. People who know the industry and the trade know full well that there are pressures of competition to which licensees will be subjected from neighbouring licensed houses—many small family public houses are in great financial difficulty at present—and there are also pressures that arise from ownership by large chains and breweries. It is beyond human imagination to suppose that pressure will not be brought to bear upon many tenants and licensees to bring about changes that they do not want. We owe it to them to ensure that they have the protection of the police in the situation in which they will find themselves.
The first difficulty arises directly from the most glaring deficiency in the Bill. I refer to the possibility of there being present on premises in which liquor is being served unaccompanied children who can enter of their own accord, be they 5, 10, 11, 12 or 13. They can wander, of their own accord, whatever amusement they seek, into premises in which others are taking liquor.
There is no reason to suppose that the atmosphere of the family room will be so changed that others will not be present in it making the use of the pub that they ordinarily make. If it is a busy Saturday lunchtime and the other bars are full to overflowing, the family room, too, may be full to overflowing. After all, it is not just a family room; it is also a bar in which ordinary drinking is taking place. It may be very civilised and restrained drinking, but it may also be much more unrestrained drinking than is seen in some places.
In such circumstances children will be subject to danger from unscrupulous persons and, perhaps even more so, from careless and irresponsible persons.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he is supporting the new clause or opposing it? If he is supporting it, he should realise that the promoter of the Bill has already accepted it.

Mr. Beith: The promoter of the Bill said that the new clause was entirely unnecessary, but that it could be accepted—I think he used the phrase "for public relations purposes". Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is not here at the moment. I do not know—I cannot see more than one of the other sponsors of the Bill—whether other sponsors will seek to divide the House against the new clause. We must have it clear where we stand.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman avoids further intervention, he will find that I do not intend to dwell on the new clause for too long, because there are other important matters that deserve the full discussion that has been given by hon. Members to this matter. I want to make but a small addition to the debate.
I am seeking to amplify points that I think ought to have a little more attention. I was referring to the kinds of threat to which an unaccompanied child would be subject in these bars. I do not think I need enlarge on the sort of people who would find advantage to themselves in leading astray young children in a crowded public house bar. There are such people. It is a constant problem for the police to detect them before they do some dreadful mischief, and the police will be in greater difficulty if they have to deal with unaccompanied children who are exposed to this sort of threat.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On the molestation point, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), I would point out that this is a serious problem in cinemas at the moment. Everyone is aware of the problem, but nobody suggests that child-rent should be banned from entering cinemas because of that risk. It is unreasonable to oppose this measure simply because the hon. Gentleman says that the problem may arise in family rooms.

This is a problem that arises in any place to which children have access.

Mr. Beith: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say so.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Does not that imply that if something bad is happening in one area of activity we should make it possible in a great many others?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) says that this danger is already present in cinemas, and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) quoted other places, such as national institutions, where this sort of problem might arise, but under this measure we have the added problem that alcohol is being served. If the hon. Member for Rushcliffe does not know the extent to which alcohol removes responsibility from people, it is time he learned.

Mr. Neubert: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that cinemas are another case in point? It is possible for children to be taken into a cinema by people who are ostensibly their parents, and, indeed, children often have succeeded in prevailing upon adults who are not their parents to take them to see an X or an AA film. Therefore, if the proposal was that unaccompanied children would not be allowed to be served, in fact they could probably prevail upon adults to buy them drinks in the same way as they can prevail upon adults to take them into cinemas.

Mr. Beith: That leads me to the second point of my argument—

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have in my hand a letter from a senior police officer, who says:
With children's accommodation order areas they"—
child molesters—
will have permanent places to visit, not just those that are available once or twice a year.
Clearly this is a matter of deep concern to the police, and the House ought not to ignore it.

Mr. Beith: I was seeking to move from the category of unscrupulous persons to the equally dangerous category of people whose intentions are far less drastic and obvious. I am thinking of the careless and irresponsible


person who, without any intention of molesting a child, does not think of the consequences when he says "Have a drop of this." On the Second Reading the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) took part in the debate. I am sorry that he is not here today. The hon. Member who approved of some parts of the Bill and disapproved of other parts, quoted from his own experience when he heard someone say to the mother of a baby "Put some rum on the dummy. That will keep the baby quiet."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That practice is illegal under the present law and will continue to be illegal under the Bill. It is nonsense to make that point when that practice will continue to be illegal.

Mr. Beith: That is precisely why I want the police to have power to enter the premises, so that they can see that offences of that kind are not committed. So far there has been difficulty in doing that, because it is hard to arrive at a suspicion that such an offence might be about to be committed. It is necessary to enter the public house in order to find out, and the only way in which this can be done is by having a regular police patrol. My real fear is that people who do not think as they should of the consequences may encourage children to drink, starting with banter or a joking remark. They are liable to begin something the consequences of which they do not contemplate.

Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is presumably in favour of police having the power to enter people's homes?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has said that he sought not to be absolutist in these matters. On occasion we have found it necessary in this House to become absolutist for the protection of children. Earlier today we considered violence in the home and in marriage, and we have found it necessary to make incursions that on broad principle we would be unhappy about. There is a tremendous responsibility on the House to protect the next generation from dangers that do not seem to have entered the thoughts or consideration of those who support the Bill. I recognise that there is scope for argument about the way

in which the Bill would increase those dangers, but it is the absence of those dangers from the consideration of the sponsors of the Bill which I find appalling. We must have clear provision in the Bill to ensure regular police patrolling.
The second of the two reasons that I had hoped to put, had I not been interrupted so often, is the position of tenants, licensees and those who are responsible for the conduct of these premises. Let no one underestimate the threats and dangers to which those in charge of public houses have been subject in recent years. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) seemed to disparage the National Association of Licensed House Managers—people who I know to be deeply concerned about this Bill from their own experiences of these premises in their localities. The hon. Gentleman may have cause to regret his attitude, and he may wish to withdraw.

Mr. Mike Thomas: If anything that I have said has impugned the sense of responsibility and sincerity of the National Association of Licensed House Managers, I unreservedly withdraw, but I do not withdraw my disagreement with its claim that it represents the unanimous view of all its members, because it does not.

Mr. Beith: No trade union could reasonably claim that every one of its members subscribes to every view of the union. The National Association of Licensed House Managers has opposed this Bill for a long time. The president of the association, who lives not far from the boundaries of my constituency, and who is himself a manager and is in close touch with opinion, states that the association is deeply opposed to this proposal.
3.0 p.m.
One of the association's overriding concerns has been the threat of violence to its own members, and it knows this from direct experience. I hope that hon. Members will not ignore the leaflet that the association sent, I believe, to all of us about the assault that led ultimately to the death of one of its members in the North-East—a Mr. Gordon Dixon—accounts of which appeared in the Newcastle newspapers, notably the Sunday


Sun. I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East read them.
Mr. Dixon was assaulted, his assailant was fined £15, Mr. Dixon was, for a period, a sick man, as the photographs showed, and he ultimately died. The association said this this in its leaflet:
We believe we are entitled to ask for real Parliamentary support for our members in enforcing the laws which Parliament enacts
and it asked for support for a specific proposal to
Ban convicted thugs from every pub".
The hon. Member would have done better to support a proposal of that kind than to involve himself in support for this measure.
Let no one suppose that licensees and tenants can sleep easily when faced with the consequences of a Bill that could increase considerably the threat of violence to them. I was amazed by the hon. Gentleman's argument on this point. He seemed to suggest that it was unreasonable to ask somebody to cease drinking and leave the premises at a time which seems utterly reasonable from every other point of view, especially that of the licensee, who has to get his glasses washed and clear the place up by 11.30, getting to bed, if he is lucky, by midnight to be ready for another heavy day.
Apparently, however, the hon. Gentleman regards it as unreasonable to ask someone to go, and suggests that no one should be surprised if the licensee is assaulted with broken glasses or broken bottles and is belaboured and attacked in all manner of ways which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman would not wish to contemplate.

Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have nothing but concern and sympathy for those who suffer violence, whether in public houses or anywhere else. There is no support from the sponsors of the Bill for that sort of activity, and it does the hon. Member no credit to suggest that we should support it.
Moreover, the hon. Gentleman's other assertion is quite untrue. It is not the fact licensees and managers regard the present closing time as reasonable. If it were, they would not take the opprtunity as frequently as they now do to ask the licensing justices for extensions be-

yond 10.30, up to, say, 11 o'clock on Friday or Saturday nights, or seek special extensions on a variety of occasions—almost as often as they can—for particular functions. If it were the fact that licensees and managers took the view thatt he hon. Gentleman asserts, that evidence would not be there, but it is there for all to see. Where there is opportunity to extend the hours at present, that opportunity is taken.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman seeks to divert me from dealing with his own argument. There is provision for responsible application for occasional extension under the present law, and sensible licensees take that opportunity. Sometimes, of course, they are under some pressure of competition to do so, because clubs in the same area already have extensions, but by no means all licensees relish very late hours on Fridays and Saturdays, and all the extra work that that involves. However, as I say, there is opportunity under the present law for responsible extension for special purposes.

Mr. Neubert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Greater London area alone more than 66,000 such licences were granted in 1975, which in itself puts a burden on the police?

Mr. Beith: Yes, both licensees and police have problems under the present law. No one can conceive of a licensing law that would be ideal, but what is proposed in the present Bill would make matters worse.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East says that it is unreasonable to ask a man to give up drinking and leave premises that are to be closed at 10.30 p.m., and that he should be allowed to remain in the same premises and drink a great deal more for a further hour and a half. In that way, the hon. Gentleman suggests, we reduce the risk that he will do violence to the preson who asks him to leave at the time now laid down. Apparently, an hour and a half later, after several pints and some chasers, the chap will take a more reasonable view of the request to leave the premises. I can only regard that as nonsense.
We are not talking about reasonable people—people of the sort whom the hon. Gentleman and I would regard as not disposed to violence and irersponsible behaviour when asked to leave at


what they know to be the closing time. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again.

Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman so consistently and confusingly misrepresents me that he obliges me to intervene. I did not suggest that when a man is drunk he should be allowed to stay and drink even more. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the proposals in the Bill would not lead to such consequences. The only example we have at present of this kind of change in the licensing hours is in Northern Ireland, and in fact it has civilised drinking there and made matters far better than they were. People can go home without feeling obliged to go off at once to the pub to slosh down half-a-dozen pints before closing time. They can go to their homes and, after having a meal, go out in a civilised way, drink what they want, and then return home. The idea that the majority of customers in British public houses are unreasonable and irresponsible is utter nonsense. The majority are reasonable. All they object to is having unreasonable restrictions placed on them.

Mr. Beith: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Northern Ireland is a model of responsible drinking, the reason for this irresponsible Bill is only too clear. He should have second thoughts about intervening along those lines again.

Mr. John Lee: Is not the reason for people leaving the pubs early in Northern Ireland that they want to get home quickly before the civil war in the late hours?

Mr. Beith: Northern Ireland does not provide a good model for the sensible and responsible use of alcohol.
I must make it clear that I believe that the majority of people in public houses are responsible and sensible, and do not behave irresponsibly or indulge in violence if they are told that the pub is closing. There may be a joke and a little banter when time is called, but it is not an occasion for violence, except for a tiny minority. Some people might say that they do not want to go home to the wife yet, but they have no particular wish to see their habits so changed that they feel some strange obligation to sit drinking for another one and a half hours. We are talking about people who are disposed to

use violence and who drink to the extent that they feel no restraint on violence.

Sir Bernard Braine: We are also dealing with the fact that the Bill introduces, for the first time, a second closing hour. Children will be required to leave at 8 o' clock. Many licensees are expressing the gravest anxiety about what will happen if children who are required to leave at 8 o'clock are accompanied by irresponsible adults who want to continue their drinking. Is that not an added reason for ensuring that there is greater police surveillance?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) was on to a sound point when he said that the police will face difficulties. The clause is made necessary by the Bill. In any locality there will be a series of closing times, all of which could cause difficulties. There is the children's closing time and the other different closing times of pubs in the district. Each of those closing hours could give rise to difficulties of one kind or another. The possibility of violence seems to be the main threat involved in the later closing times. I hope that the only threat involved in the earlier closing hour will be that of an offence being committed under the Bill, but I fear it may be more than that.

Mr. Neubert: There is an extra dimension to the issue. It is not just that there will be an extra closing hour; it will be a closing hour the implementation of which cannot be ascertained from outside the premises. Unless police officers are going to have to peer through windows, there must be powers for them to go inside.

Mr. Beith: I wonder whether the police will have to keep a lookout outside public houses for families or collections of accompanied children, or collections of unaccompanied children whose parents have remained inside the pub to carry on drinking. The range of possibilities is endless and disturbing, and they give rise to the need for an amendment on the lines proposed.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I wholeheartedly support the clause. I do not want to be accused of filibustering at this late hour. I do not intend to speak at great length because, as the sponsor of the Bill, the


hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), was always reminding us in Committee, we should get on with the business. I should be the last to try to hold it up. I nave remained in my seat content to listen to speech after speech, to words of wisdom.

Mr. Lee: And unwisdom.

Mr. Lewis: As we went all through the night in Committee with about three of us holding the fort, we wondered about the outcome of the Bill. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas)—the Laurel and Hardy of the Bill, as I called them—have by this measure at least given the House a certain amount of entertainment on two Fridays, 18th June and today, which is my birthday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]
Those of us who have been fighting the Bill have stood out against it because we could see the end product if it ever became law. We have been called fanatics. That charge has been repeated today. But we are getting on with the business very well, though I realise that there are a few more amendments to be dealt with.
Like other hon. Members, since our debate on 18th June I have received a number of letters, one of which came from the constituency of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. It said:
I would have thought that Mr. Clarke could have found something better and a bit more uplifting to work on.
I suggest that at the last General Election the hon. Gentleman had that person's vote.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows the gentleman—

Mr. Lewis: Lady.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: —who sent him that unsolicited letter. I have received a letter from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) deploring the conduct of his hon. Member in blocking my eminently worthwhile reform. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we cannot judge public opinion by quoting one policeman

here and one constituent there? We know that we are dealing with a controversial measure. The Temperance Council of the Christian Churches has conducted a fantastic campaign of letter-writing from all over the country. I should think that every paid-up member has written to every hon. Member. Letter-bags weighted in that way by any group, however sincere and well-intentioned, are not a proper way to form a judgment on worthwhile social reforms.

Mr. Lewis: I concede that the letters emanating from the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches are helping to swell the coffers of the Post Office, but they have drawn the attention of hon. Members and others to this important measure.
I want to be fair. The hon. Gentleman said that he had received a letter from a constituent of his hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). To show how impartial we are in this great undertaking, I tell him that there was a letter in my local paper early last week from one of my staunchest supporters, canvassers and workers deploring my attitude.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) drew attention to last week's television programme on the problem of under-age drinking, which I watched in the family room. Later that evening I had a telephone conversation with a constituent who, I should have thought, had certain doubts about my attitude but who said that after watching that programme he was more convinced that the little band of fanatics were right in opposing the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is not at the moment with us, because there was an interesting report in the Evening Chronicle of Newcastle on 8th June, which said that the pub managers and tenants had gone over to the idea of late-night opening and late-night drinks. The report quotes the branch chairman of the District Licensed Victuallers, who is himself manager of a pub. That manager is quoted as saying:
If we open later people just come out halt an hour later. We are no better off, there's just even more of a lull when we first open.


Therefore, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East might say, obviously the local managers of Tyneside do not want the Bill. There are always individuals who welcome such provisions, but, as has been demonstrated time and again, fears have been expressed by managers that if they want to stay in business they will all have to open.
I promised that I would be brief, and I shall abide by what I said. I want to be charitable to the sponsors of the Bill because I know that they are anxious to make progress. I support the clause because it is vitally important that there should be extra protection for the licensed house managers.
I believe that in the main the majority of licensed house managers, apart from the odd exception, are decent, respectable citizens who want to comply with the law. But they are rightly worried because every Member of the House received a letter from them in January drawing attention to the violence that takes place late at night. I believe that if ever the Bill were to become law—and I do not think that will happen—the clause would give those licensed house managers the little extra protection they need. It does not go as far as managers would like, and I hope that the Minister will take note of the representations made by the managers.
Since we met in June, I have met in my constituency a delegation from the National Association of Licensed House Managers. They begged us to do everything posible to kill the Bill. I do not think we can be accused of dragging our feet on that score. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe laughs. I remember how he laughed at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning when we were in Committee. Of course we had stamina, and we are now dealing with these matters on the Floor of the House. We knew that we would get reinforcements, and we got them. That was exemplified on 18th June and again this morning.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the tight we put up in Committee. I myself spoke for 10 hours and I make no apology, since we believe that if the Bill goes through children under 14 will be in grave danger. It is for that reason that we are determined to fight the Bill line

by line, word by word. We are determined that it shall not pass. I am heartened not only by the hon. Member's speech but by the realism and the intensity of feeling in the other speeches made in support of the new clause. If this wretched Bill goes through, it is imperative that the power of increased surveillance is given to the police.

Mr. Lewis: I agree with every word the hon. Member has said. We still have a bit more fight left in us yet.
One of the greatest problems confronting the nation is the increase in alcoholism. It cannot be pushed under the carpet. We cannot pass it by on the other side. This is something that cannot be ignored. I hold the view, as does the Temperance Movement and Temperance Council of Christian Churches that if this measure goes through we will aggravate rather than ease the problem. No one wants to do that.
In recent years a number of organisations have set up working parties to inquire into questions such as under-age drinking and the problems associated with women and drink. One of the latest investigations is that undertaken by the National Council of Women of Great Britain. This council comprises members of all political parties and of none. Its working party has been busy for the past year and it is expected that the report will be published next month. The National Council of Women was founded in 1895 by a small group of women with a profound social conscience. It can be described as a pressure group. It works for the improvement of the quality of life, believing that well-informed pressure is the most effective way to bring about such reform. I understand that the working party accepts that alcohol is part of the social scene, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the hon. Member's consideration of the new clause that we want to hear.

Mr. Lewis: I agree, and I am coming round to that. The National Council of Women agrees that alcohol has been with us for over 1,000 years. It has found that there is much misunderstanding on the subject. Although I do not know the results of the investigation, I am pretty well convinced that the national council would welcome anything


that would provide safeguards in this measure. That is why I support the new clause.
May I offer a little charitable advice to the Bill's sponsors? I beg them, at 3.25 p.m., to concede defeat, withdraw this measure and give the other Bills which are to follow the chance of a hearing.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Today is the first day of what is to be the most pressing week ahead in our political history, certainly from the point of view of parliamentary procedure. We have to face the fact that next week we shall have guillotined legislation of paramount importance to Britain. All the major Bills in the Socialists' legislative programme will be guillotined and the House of Commons will become a steamroller. Yet we find that we have to suffer today what is perfectly proper within the bounds of procedure in one sense but what is certainly quite wrong from the country's point of view in another—a series of interminable speeches playing across the court from one to the other so that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) purports to oppose a new clause which he supports and, in turn, we have also the abuse of the general procedure by long interventions to make further Second Reading speeches by those who are supporting each other in this small tightly knit set. Therefore it seems essential to me—

Mr. Beith: Then move the closure.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall come to that point in a moment. It seems to me, therefore, that we have to reconsider this whole question.
Some two and a half hours ago, New Clause 1 was accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). In order for the minority to carry out their tactics—perfectly legitimate tactics, as such—we have had to suffer three hours of debate, most of which has been on the bounds of order, with speeches continuing for very long periods.
The question has been asked repeatedly "Why don't you closure?" The difficulty of Parliament over the past few months is that so exhausted are so many Members of Parliament with other duties outside this Chamber, thanks to the Government, that, come a Friday, it is extremely difficult—

Mr. Spearing: Duties in the courts?

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is not my concern. I am seldom in them these days. I have just come out of Standing Committee after some 20 days on the tied cottages Bill. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage and Battered Children, of which just a word anon. But I do not want to be diverted. That would be out of order. I am venturing to point out that the whole parliamentary timetable is becoming a total nonsense.
Here we are on a Friday. It is impossible to move the closure because the sponsors of the Bill and those supporting the Bill are not able to get 100 Members here on a Friday. It is high time that we looked at this, because it is quite wrong that we should have to get 100 Members here on a Friday to enable the closure to be moved. The situation at the moment, however, is that the minority is given power out of all proportion to what is really deserved.
This morning, though I suspect that the House does not realise it, it has passed a mistresses' charter through this place. Again, it so happens—

Mr. Spearing: New Clause 1.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This is right on the clause. In fact, on an earlier Bill all the amendments were not selected and the Bill went through containing matter that had never been considered on the Floor of the House, because the Bill had been entirely rewritten.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are not we dealing with a new clause on a specific Bill, and is it in order to go right across the spectrum and discuss other Bills that might or might not have been passed today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) to say that he was relating his remarks to New Clause 1.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am, and very much so. The essence is that the use of New Clause 1, by this tiny minority, to toss the argument to and fro and to support it and oppose it, to enable them to remain within the bounds of order, indicates a need for the whole matter to be carefully considered as part of our


procedure. Is it proper for the House to deal with a new clause in this way?
I was venturing to point out that we passed a Bill on the nod with a whole lot of matters unselected—a Bill that came back on the Floor of the House having been totally amended in Committee. The result is that we are now having a totally unbalanced debate.
The purpose of my intervention is to put the record straight on New Clause 1. The major purpose of the Bill is to provide a family room in public houses if that is desired by licensees. It will be desired by licensees only if such provision fits in with the pattern of trade in their area. There is no compulsion by the brewers societies or by anyone else.
It is a small recommendation, one of a great many that originated from the evidence that I gave to the Erroll Committee some time ago. The committee was composed of every kind of person in society. However, it was far too big, being composed of about 20 members, at the insistence of the Home Office. It was led by an extremely able chairman. It received evidence from the Churches, and all the matters that have been referred to today were put before it came to its conclusion. The conclusion that it arrived at was a small one.
It has not been sufficiently emphasised that any child of 14 or over can now go into licensed premises. Children are entitled to go into them, and they do so. It has been suggested that the Bill seeks to go very far, but the family room provision is designed to pdovide a room to which the family can go—namely, father, mother and children. I venture to point out that at present families frequently go into the gardens of public houses. They are always entitled to use the gardens.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet come to a New Clause 1.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The whole point is that the clause does not require any further supervision by the police, as is suggested in New Clause 1. Whether we are talking about a family room or the garden of a public house, it is a great advantage if children are subject to the supervision of their parents or guardians,

or the person with whom they enter the premises. I regard that as socially desirable.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Bill does not provide that children be accompanied either by their parents or guardians? They can enter licensed premises unaccompanied within the terms of the Bill. That is one of the main objections to it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In the gardens where children can go at present, there is no control over them. The Bill makes explicit provision for the setting apart of a family room. Provided that we have that family room, which is the children's accommodation, we have all that we need. The public house staff will not be able to serve children with drink in that family room. The Bill provides that children cannot be provided with anything. It must be an adult who buys the alcohol, the soft drinks or even the chips.
I support the view that an accommodation room of that kind will be helpful. I believe that those who propose such accommodation are doing something desirable from the point of view of the family. Let us consider the family that goes out into the country on a Sunday in the middle of the day with the children. It is too ludicrous for words that in country house hostels it is not possible for children to be admitted. It is ludicrous that at that time of day the family cannot keep together. Of course, the family can keep together in Margate, or somewhere like that, where it is possible to go into the garden of a public house. Therefore, it is necessary to find a public house with an external garden on a decent day.

Sir Bernard Braine: Sir Bernard Braine rose—

Mr. Rees-Davies: No, I shall not give way. I do not want speech interventions. I have already given way once. It seems most desirable that we produce a new system in which family accommodation can be provided if the publican so desires.
There are a large number of publicans who rightly do not want and will not use a family room, because they do not have suitable rooms in their pubs for that purpose. Some publicans want to be able to provide a room for men only and another room where both sexes can enjoy


their drinking. When they go in for that type of accommodation, they do not require supervision. They would not require any more supervision here. Generally, it is only the large hotel or public house which can afford to set apart a special room for the family. If that is done, there is no necessity to have any more supervision. The publican will be able to supervise such a room more easily than his other problems.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Rees-Davies: With reluctance, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. and learned Friend is making the first intelligent defence of the Bill when he talks about the desirability of encouraging the idea of the family. But will he explain why there is no provision in the Bill for children under the age of 14 to be accompanied by their parents? If the object is to advance the interests of the family, why do the sponsors of the Bill reject any suggestion that children under the age of 14 should be accompanied by responsible persons—namely, their parents?

Mr. Rees-Davies: The answer is, because they have merely provided for one special room which is subject to easy supervision. The promoters of the Bill—I am not a promoter of the Bill—did not feel that it was necessary to include such a provision. This is another way of doing it. There is more than one way.
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State has told the House what is being done in the Licensing (Scotland) Bill. I have been closely concerned with our licensing laws for many years and have been involved in almost every measure concerning them. I understand that the proceedings on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill have now reached this stage. Are we to assume that the Government will not include in that Bill a recommendation for some type of family room? I understood that they were moving in that direction. Certainly not only the Erroll Report but the Clayson Report made observations on this matter.
When I take my children out—one is 15 and another is 10—I have to go to

places that have gardens attached to them. Many of these laws are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. For example, if one attends any ordinary hunt in the winter, one will see many children under 14 years of age going into public houses accompanied by their parents, and few publicans will turn them out.
The general feeling in the counry today is that the best way of keeping control over alcoholism is for children to be with their parents when there is moderate consumption. They should be allowed to mix, as they will later in life, in order to recognise that the taking of alcohol in moderation is a normal requisite of adult life. Youngsters not only over 14 but under 14 should be able to go into a room that is set apart for that purpose.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rees-Davies: No, not again. I do not think that we need this clause. It has been conceded by the promoters of the Bill because they want to try to get this measure on the statute bok.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rees-Davies: No.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I should like to comment on the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made.

Mr. Rees-Davies: All right.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to make the point that he did about children being with the family, but do I understand that he is prepared to go even further than the sponsors of the Bill, who have nut in a limit of 8 o'clock? Does he wish to go beyond that time?

Mr. Rees-Davies: The difficulty about the hours position has been criticised to some effect by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who said that under the Bill there are two closing hours—10.30 pm and, in a sense, 8 o'clock, when the children go. I have no doubt that the right way is to adopt the Erroll recommendation that public interest does not require the exclusion of children under 14 from


part or parts of premises, and that the licensing justices should have an absolute discretion whether to grant a certificate and to attach conditions governing it.
In my evidence on that point, which I dealt with briefly on Second Reading, I said that the licensee of a public house should be allowed to specify the particular parts of the premises that would be available to be used by children of any age provided they were accompanied by adults, and that such parts of the premises should be identified by a notice stating that children may be present if accompanied by an adult. I also recommended:
That children, provided they are accompanied by an adult, should be entitled to enter bars in any hotel or other on-licence establishment.
I am not suggesting that was the dernier cri, the last word, or the only way in which it could be done, but I put that forward as a recommendation and the Erroll Committee was substantially in accord with it.
I do not think that we should have a closing hour of 8 o'clock for children. This is a matter for the parents, and it always has been all over the world. In France, Spain, and those countries in which children are allowed into bars, one sees children there until 10 pm, 10.30 pm or even 11 pm. We should retain the time of 11 pm and the family room would have a condition attached to it about the hour. It is the family room that carries the hour, not the child. That is how I see it. Anyway, it is there, and it is not restrictive, and therefore the hon. Gentleman has no cause to regret it.
The right way to deal with this is to give to the licensing justices a discretion to specify a particular hour for the family room. They would not give the family room the right to remain open until 11.30 pm or 12 o'clock. That is the way in which it could effectively be done from the practitioners' point of view. It would be quite simple to take care of the issue in that way.
Let me now deal with the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford. He said that in London alone—and he is right—there are more than 60,000 special hours' certificates which

waste the time not only of the police but of the licensees to a considerable degree. It is a most costly and time-consuming process, and one of the signal advantages of Clause 1 is that by giving greater flexibility of hours it enables the whole of the machinery to be swept away at one go.
The licensee will apply to the licensing justices at the brewster sessions for an extra hour's certificate only if he wishes to do so, and therefore there cannot be any objection by the licensed house managers. The publican will apply and, having got the extension, will be rid of all the paraphenalia of having to go to the justices and say "It is the hockey club function tomorrow night and the darts tournament the night after," or "There is a visit from the German champions". There will be a much more flexible procedure. That is why it is so attractive.
3.45 p.m.
What about the objections of the trade? I know the trade well. I gave evidence to the Brewers' Society a long time ago and I have had the honour and pleasure of being associated with the licensed victuallers nationally and locally. Their difficulty on this clause is genuine. They are very anxious about the position of the police. They have almost reached the position in which they would like the police to be able to come in at any time, and that is because they are being unfairly treated. They are subjected to abuse and assaults which are quite intolerable. That arises, however, from the state of society in Britain generally. The publicans, the cinema staffs and refreshment houses are all confronted by this situation. Those of us representing seaside towns recognise the problem of vandalism and brutal assaults which exists.
But that problem does not arise out of this Bill. Where pubs are concerned, it arises in a few where there is a lot of heavy drinkers—where people like the lump and others go. In the main, it does not arise in pubs in the sort of case we are dealing with in calling for flexibility of hours and family rooms.
Members of the trade basically do not want longer hours, but they do want some flexibility according to circumstances, provided they are satisfied that it will not be imposed upon them. I understand


that the Newcastle group of licensed victuallers was opposed to flexibility because its members felt that the brewers would impose it upon them. But the brewers have given a specific undertaking to the contrary, and I believe them. I believe that there is no danger of such an imposition, and that the managers will be able to keep their own hours. Many of them will not want extended hours, while others will. In Thanet we want this Bill. We want greater flexibility.

Mr. Neubert: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) castigated my hon. Friends for making Second Reading speeches, but he himself is making a very effective speech of that kind, to the disadvantage of those of us who have endeavoured to remain within the bounds of order by speaking narrowly to the clause. Is that a fair way to treat the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have on three occasions urged the hon. Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) to relate his observations to New Clause 1.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Unfortunately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been so desperately led astray by the earlier speeches that I am, in effect, giving a sort of summing up reply to all the extremely able speeches that have been delivered from what I regard as the opposition, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe does not, apparently, seek to do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."] He is absent only for a moment, perhaps to see how many hundreds of hon. Members he can get to flock into the Lobby in support of his Bill.
I conclude by saying that I want the question of supervision by the police to be perfectly plain. It ill became my hon. Friend the Member for Romford to intervene as he did on his point of order, because the only way he was able to relate his remarks to the terms of order was to "spoof" and speak against the clause, which in fact he supported. He therefore developed a speech into which he was able to bring all these vagaries and troubles and talk of vandalism and the rest, because he said that it would mean a great deal more police supervision and would need more police. He said that the police force had been run down, and

that this Bill would impose an unfair burden. He waxed hot on that. It is rare for him to deliver a speech of great insincerity, but it was at the very least that.
The country does not want an increase in alcoholism. I know the great conviction and sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. I recognise it entirely.

Mr. Neubert: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Not just at the moment.

Mr. Neubert: He made a personal reference.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall give way in a moment. I wanted to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. Then I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, having referred to him.
I was saying that, on the question of alcoholism, which is the whole pith of the matter, we shall not increase the likelihood of alcoholism with the family room, whether we adopt the type of protection of the 8 o'clock rule and a specific room being looked after by the publican, or whether it is done in a different way.
The time has come to enable the family to remain together. The family goes out yachting and motoring together; it goes abroad where there are no drink laws, and in the modern world this is right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to speak to New Clause 1.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Having made that point, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Neubert: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that by alleging insincerity on my part and then, directly afterwards, commending the sincerity of my colleague in this matter—my hon. Friend the Member for Essex. South-East (Sir B. Braine)—he has left on the record not only an invidious but an unjustified distinction? Perhaps he would think it right to withdraw it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I did not mean or intend to imply that my hon. Friend was


insincere in his convictions against the Bill. I do not suggest that for a moment. I am sure that he is completely sincere, and that everything that he has said is heartfelt. I was merely arguing that when he was arguing against New Clause 1, whereas the burden of the argument of all his hon. Friends was in favour of it, his argument in that regard was insincere and no part of the "temperance" case—to use a generic term—that he supports.
If they can sit up all night these days, as a number of them did in Committee—I am happy to say that I was not a member of the Committee—one recognises the deep sincerity and conviction of the opponents of the Bill. But that does not make them right. It was very much part of the careful consideration of Erroll to bear in mind all these representations at the time—whether the family room was likely to encourage children to obtain drink, and also the question of police supervision. On the broad principle of this type of family room, the Committee is entitled to be upheld.
I do not believe that the clause is necessary. It is better that the police should not intervene until they are called upon—and the publican can always call upon them. I hope that we shall have always close collaboration between the police and others. For those reasons, I hope that the record is now a little straighter at the end of this debate.
As this week wends its way to next week, when we know that the guillotine will grind away important measures in a matter of a few hours, I hope that we shall remember that at any rate this clause has been debated for upwards of four hours in a debate that could not be closured because of our existing procedure and the inability to get 100 Members present for that purpose.

Mr. Spearing: I should first apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). When I referred earlier to attendance at court, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was attending more Select Committees in the House than heretofore. It will be the general wish that more hon. Members did that.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Especially the lawyers.

Mr. Spearing: Especially the lawyers, as my hon. Friend says.
In the few minutes remaining, I shall concentrate on the question of the nature of the family room which the police would have to supervise if the new clause were added to the Bill. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has accepted the new clause.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West kept on talking about a room being set aside. He used the phrase "an accommodation room". That is not quite what the word implies. The original wording of the Bill was
any bar on those premises".
It was suggested in Committee that to clarify the matter it would be better to put the words
set aside as a family room
after the words "any bar". As reported at column 322 of the proceedings in Standing Committee, the Chairman said that he would be willing to accept a manuscript amendment to that effect from the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) if he sought leave to withdraw the amendment then under discussion.
That was a very curious occasion, because, as reported at column 331, far from the hon. Member for Essex, South-East moving a manuscript amendment to that effect, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe did so with alacrity. I make no complaint about it, except that it was not the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. Immediately there was written into the Bill the phrase which now appears in Clause 2(1):
in relation to any bar set aside as a family room on those premises".
Therefore, we are not talking about a family room set aside physically and distinct from other bars. We are talking about a bar designated as such.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The reason why I moved the manuscript amendment was that I agreed with the case for a family room and wished to write that safeguard into the Bill. I had to move the manuscript amendment because the opponents of the Bill would not move it. They were more concerned to give themselves time later on to debate the details of the Bill ad nauseam than to secure the safeguards which they claimed they wanted written into the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an explanation. Had it been necessary, the amendment could have been tabled for consideration on Report and we could have been discussing it as part of the debate today.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that justices would not give permission for such a room to be designated unless it was a suitable room for children's accommodation?

Mr. Spearing: That was one of the matters which could have been debated. I had some criteria down for discussion. The possibility is that it would be regarded as a family room and not as a bar. That is what is in the Bill.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the anxiety of a small minority on the Standing Committee was about the use of such deceptive terms as "family room" when there was no provision in the Bill that children under the age of 14 should be accompanied by their parents and that they would be able to come into so-called family rooms unaccompanied?

Mr. Spearing: The recent exchanges have shown that the phrase was misleading because it referred to "any bar" and not to a room set aside.
The debate on the new clause has been useful. I hope that in the closing seconds of the debate we can agree on at least one thing, namely, that the case of Valentine v. Jackson has shown that the present position is unsatisfactory. I have made inquiries into this point and I hope that in some way, if not through the Bill, the Government, on the advice of hon Members and of the police, will look at the matter. None of us will wish untoward incidents to occur or licensees to be under pressure when by the simple device of putting the law back where it was—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 15th October.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

INDECENT DISPLAYS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15th October.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15th October.

ROAD ACCIDENT COMPENSATION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [12th March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 15th October.

CONSUMER PROTECTION (MOTOR VEHICLES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15th October.

ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE RE- CRUITMENT OF MERCENARIES (PROHIBITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I propose to raise this point of order, though more briefly, on eight


subsequent occasions today. Seven Members of the House who have claimed to introduce a Bill have not submitted a text, even though this is the last time for Private Members' Bills. Those who advise the Whip have not advised him that this Bill does not exist. Nobody can object to a Second Reading, because you cannot propose the Question on a Bill which does not exist in print. I suggest that this should be a dropped Order and struck off the Order Paper.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Perhaps it would be helpful if I mentioned to the hon. Member, having had my attention drawn to the fact that several Bills listed on the Order Paper have not been printed, that this is not an uncommon procedure. The House is safeguarded from proceeding with any such Bills by the action of the Chair. In such cases, if objection is not taken to the proceedings on the Bill it has been the long-standing practice of the occupant of the Chair to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill has not been printed and to state that in his opinion he ought not to propose the Question. Precedents for this practice are set out at page 494 of "Erskine May" and I propose to follow them.

Mr. English: I entirely accept and understand your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In no way was this a criticism of the Chair. What I think is objectionable is the fact that for a Member to claim to introduce a Bill in such circumstances is an abuse of the House because it raises the expectations of people outside—false expectations, because they are never fulfilled by the hon. Member who claimed to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, the Question is not being proposed. Second Reading what day? No day named.

CRIMINAL PROFITS (EXPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. English: The same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

HOUSING (SHORTHOLD TENANCIES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. English: The same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that this excellent Bill is printed? I am not sure whether it is in order for the Whip, on instructions from the legislative sub-committee of the Cabinet, to shout "Object", thus avoiding debate on a Bill which would save £100 million for back strains and back injuries and reduce the 50,000 back injuries which occur in places of work every year in this country. May I have your ruling on whether it is in order for this attitude to be taken by the Government Whip on instructions from the Cabinet to oppose an excellent piece of legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What may or may not happen in the Cabinet, I am happy to say, is not the responsibility of the Chair. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Cryer: Friday 15th October.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

COMPANIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (RE- STRICTION OF RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am not the promoter of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am a sponsor. May I say Friday 15th October?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Member in charge of the Bill issued authority to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: No, he has not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In those circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot accept that suggestion. No day named.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15th October.

TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. English: The same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There can be no objection because the Question cannot be proposed. I might add that the hon. Member who claims to introduce the Bill holds the record. He claims to have introduced three Bills which he has not bothered to have printed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

TUBERCULOSIS VISITORS (HEALTH AND CHEST CLINICS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE ACT 1960 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. English: The same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There can be no objection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

INDECENT DISPLAYS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. English: The same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

BREEDING OF ANIMALS FOR VIVISECTION (PROHIBITION OF EXPORT AND OTHER CONTROLS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15th October.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hardy.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of Order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I wish to ask whether this is a practice which is accepted by the Chair. I seem to remember that on previous occasions when an occurrence of this kind took place, with a Bill being rushed through all its stages at 4 o'clock or after

4 o'clock on a Friday, the procedure has been deprecated from the Chair. Is that still so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman signifying an objection?

Mr. Goodhew: No.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15th October.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (RETIREMENT PENSIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. English: The same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

OSTEOPATHS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

ABOLITION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This finally completes


the record of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

HOSPITAL SERVICES (HEMEL HEMPSTEAD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: People have the right to an adequate standard of health and hospital care. That, after all, was why the Labour Government, 30 years ago, fought so hard to establish our National Health Service. Indeed, one test of a caring community and country is how well it looks after its sick, alongside its young and old, both of which groups are, in any event heavy users of hospital services.
By that test the people of Hemel Hempstead and its surrounding towns and villages are badly served. A hospital on two sites which coped with a population of about 40,000 about 30 years ago now has to try to cope with the changed and heavier demands of a population of over 120,000. That has been the effect of the development of our new town.
The present hospital service is inadequate. It puts at needless risk the health and perhaps even the lives of patients and imposes severe burdens on staff, whose care and devotion helps to cover the present deficiencies. The physical conditions in which patients are treated and staff at all levels have to work are a disgrace to the face of our new town and its area.
Thirty years after our new town was designated, years after some 13,000 new homes have been built, alongside roads, schools, a town hall, library, police station, fire and ambulance station, court and health centre, our split-site hospital stands testament to a gross confusion of priorities.
Which is the more important—a triple-lane motorway on our eastern boundary or a hospital good enough to cope with the needs of our local community? It must be the hospital. How is it that years after money was found to provide the factories to give the incoming new towners jobs the cash has yet to be

found to ensure that the people who work in them, and get ill or injured in them, are adequately served by our hospital? These are the priorities of Bedlam. Because of the generally high standard of new town development, the present hospital—united in name only and sited in two wings one mile apart—is a stark contrast, which is daily reinforced by those who use those wings or pass their doors.
Let me outline some of the problems, many of them highlighted in a district management team's report a year ago. First, the two wings are a mile apart, which means the hurried and often risky transfer of patients and specialists and other staff, often at times of critical emergency. I wonder how many lives might have been lost through this or how long recovery may have been delayed because a transfer ambulance has been held up in rush-hour traffic. Secondly, the accident department has only one entrance in which to receive all casualties, and inside there is a dreadful shortage of consulting rooms. This means that children with minor injuries are mixed up with the victims of the latest carnage on the motorway. Thirdly, there is no adequate intensive care unit with its surrounding facilities. Fourthly, the pharmaceutical services are housed in poor conditions and split between the two sites.
Fifthly, the report said of the 40-year-old operating theatre:
The accommodation of the twin operating theatre unit is totally inadequate for demands made upon it. The ancillary accommodation is also totally inadequate and needs upgrading urgently.
It added:
A hospital without accommodation or facilities to give intensive care to desperately-ill patients, including road traffic victims, is to be highly deplored.
I could go on. What this adds up to, however, is not simply that facilities are poor and should be improved at some time but that the present facilities are totally and hopelessly inadequate for the needs of our community and that the people of my area are being, as they have been for too many years, denied their entitlement to an adequate hospital service.
I say this not in any selfish sense to push the claims of Hemel Hempstead over those of other parts of the district, the area or the country. I state it as a


matter of fact. I believe that our campaign for an improvement, led by the Dacorum Hospital Action Group, is part of a growing insistence by people in many places that they shall have a proper hospital service. In our area this means that the services must be local, not on the north bank of the Thames or in Central London. For too long this has been an escape route, and it is one which is no longer tolerable or just. Hospital care must be where people work and live.
It is right that I should pay tribute to a campaign run last year by the Evening Echo to expose the deplorable state of hospital facilities in Hemel Hempstead and elsewhere in the district, a campaign which did so much to arouse the local community.
Bad as present conditions are, there is the prospect of their becoming worse. The north-west district of the Hertfordshire Area Health Authority faces a deficit of about £750,000 this year. It has been thinking of closing wards, but happily in the past few days—I like to think, in response to pressure from those within the hospital and organisations outside—it has rejected this answer as unaceptable.
The threat is so serious that the North-West Hertfordshire District Medical Committee, speaking for hospital doctors and consultants, has warned bluntly that patients will die if the cuts go ahead. The Dacorum Hospital Action Group, the Hemel Hempstead Trades Council and many others have made plain to the area health authority that cuts in the present inadequate services are unacceptable. How can an area with such a miserable level of existing provision now be asked to have even those slim facilities hacked to pieces?
It is perhaps typical that in an atmosphere of contemplation of more public spending cuts there should be this mindless Treasury thinking about cuts across the board without looking at where they are falling and ways in which they may be refined. I know the Government's argument for shifting cash to less-well-off regions. But there is a need to look at services within districts and areas within regions before attempting on a regional basis to rob an already poor Peter to pay an even poorer Paul.
What we have to face—and I believe it to be acceptable—is that, if need be, we shall pay more for an adequate hospital service rather than face the dismantling of the service. The cuts under consideration locally would strain the present level of services to breaking point.
Already our hospital faces problems with staff. On the weekly-paid side there has been an annual turnover of up to 25 per cent. in staff. On the monthly-paid side the turnover is up to 50 per cent. Because of physical conditions and the state of the facilities in which staff are required to work, the hospital is getting into a position where it faces increasing difficulties in attracting and retaining the staff it needs. One has only to think of the waste that occurs from this high turnover of staff. That could be saved, and I suspect that money could also be saved from a review of the administration imposed under the last Government by their top-heavy reorganisation.
That is only the small change of the argument. The fact is that our hospital is being asked to cut into the quick rather than to trim its nails, and that is not acceptable. It was as long ago as 1966 that a hospital plan came to the conclusion that the need for a new hospital in Hemel Hempstead was, and I quote,
of more than usual urgency.
That was 10 years ago, and work on the first phase was due to begin in 1975–76 as a result of a campaign led by the then Councillor Jack Johnstone and others. Subsequently that slipped back to the summer of 1977. The Barber cuts of December 1973 worsened an already bad situation and put a stop to hospital building. But the priority recognised in 1966 remains. Nothing has happened, except to make urgency the more urgent. If the Minister or others now say that they are back to square one in the determination of priorities, this is an argument we shall not accept. All that has changed is that the situation for the people of Hemel Hempstead has worsened, while we insist that our priority remains where it was put 10 years ago.
My constituents need no lectures on the intricacies of the rôle of the community health council or the area health authority, with which our campaign has good relations and from which we have


received support. Furthermore, we do not need lectures from the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority, which is being so blushingly coy over meeting representatives of the action group and which gives the impression that the patients for whom it is supposed to care are a nuisance.
We are tired of the bureaucratic wrangle over the question whether a hospital should be called a district general or a nucleus hospital. The name does not matter; what matters is that a firm and early starting date should now be fixed for the first phase of our desperately-needed hospital.
Last night my constituents and I were able to meet the Minister of State and to hand over to him a petition signed by 20,000 people calling for support for our new hospital. I thank the Minister for his time and patience. As he saw, we are both angry and determined. We are angry that, 30 years after our new town was begun, we now have worse hospital facilities than existed then, and we are determined to protect our present services and secure a reacceptance of our established priority. The land is there and some money is still being spent on new buildings. In the name of the 120.000 people whom I am proud to represent and fight for, I now claim a slice of that money to get the first phase of our new building under way.
If the Minister believes that I have been overstating the case I can assure him that that is not so. Let me make an offer. Let him meet the staff at all levels and see their facilities. Let him talk to elderly patients, housed 26 to a hut—a hut put up 30 years ago to give shelter from Nazi bombs to the children of Great Ormonde Street Hospital. They were called "temporary" buildings when they were put up and 30 years later they are still temporary.
No praise is high enough for the staff of this hospital. Without their care, devotion and patience, the physical conditions would make the recovery of patients that much more difficult or perhaps less likely. Their skills and talents need and deserve proper and adequate facilities in which to be exercised.
It is to their voice and that of past and future patients that I want the Minis-

ter to listen and respond. I beg him to contact the regional health authority and the area health authority to avert the threat to our present inadequate level of services. Alongside that, I want him to agree that our priority claim for the staff of a new hospital will now be recognised anew. We have waited 30 years. I make it clear that for as long as I am the Member of Parliament for the constituency there is no intention of waiting another 30 years or anything like that.

4.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I should like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on the skill and diligence with which he has been pursuing the interests of his constituents in this important matter. It is wholly characteristic of my hon. Friend that he should have argued this case today with so much feeling and genuine concern. He is respected in all parts of the House for his deep concern to ensure that the people he represents have a proper level of facilities and services available to them. He has been corresponding with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the subject of this debate for several months.
Last night, as my hon. Friend mentioned, he and a group of his constituents presented a petition of nearly 27,000 signatures to the Minister of State. My hon. Friend has referred to a figure of 20,000. My information is that it was 27,000. My right hon. Friend very much wanted to be here today. The petition is a measure of the strength of local support for a new hospital in Hemel Hempstead. I congratulate the Dacorum Hospital Action Group on all the hard work that it has put into making such a strong case.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State readily undertook to ensure that the views expressed to him last night would be drawn to the attention of all the authorities concerned and that they would be given every possible consideration. For my part I shall, of course, arrange for the case which has been presented today by my hon. Friend to be given the same consideration. I shall also ensure that particular attention is paid to my hon. Friend's suggestion of a ministerial or other official visit to the hospital.
Before turning to deal in detail with the specific points raised by my hon. Friend I must refer briefly to the general economic background against which the Government have been seeking to improve our health and personal social services. As my hon. Friend knows, our first priority is to win the battle against inflation and establish a firm basis for economic expansion. The fight against inflation means that there are limits to what we can do in improving social provision. Conservative Members often argue that there must be swingeing cuts in public expenditure. At the same time they are continually harrying us to increase public spending in specific areas. For them the sum is not greater than its parts. Indeed, when it comes to public expenditure they appear to believe that the sum is less than its parts.
Thus, the problem for Opposition Members is one not only of policy but of logic. They argue that we can increase expenditure on each individual service at the same time as reducing public expenditure as a whole. For the Government it can be said that, even within the severe restraints on public expenditure which have been necessary in the fight against inflation, we have insisted on giving priority to the National Health Service.
The proportion of the gross national product spent on the National Health Services increased steadily from 3·6 per cent. in 1955 to 4·9 per cent. in 19–74, In our first year of office, notwithstanding the cuts introduced by the previous Administration, the proportion of the gross national product devoted to the National Health Service jumped to 5·4 per cent. This was the largest-ever increase in a single year. The previous Conservative Administration had proposed to spend £3,756 million on the National Health Service in 1974–75. We increased that figure to £4,011 million. In 1975–76 we increased expenditure still further, to £5,458 million.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Plymouth, Devon port (Dr. Owen), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the former Secretary of State, for their success in protecting and improving the National Health Service in economic circumstances of daunting difficulty. It goes without saying that my right hon.

Friend the present Secretary of State is doing and will go on doing everything humanly possible to ensure that a very remarkable record is maintained.
Of course, we have not been able to do all that we have wanted to do to improve the National Health Service. I can will understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend's constituents as the prospect of the new hospital seems to recede yet again. They are not alone. There are numerous other districts in the country whose hopes have been frustrated by the recent curtailment of our capital building programme.
I should like to put on record my appreciation of the many NHS staff who continue to provide outstandingly loyal and devoted services in conditions that we should all like to improve if we can conquer the basic economic problems facing the country. Naturally, I wish that I could give my hon. Friend some positive news about the proposed new hospital at Hemel Hempstead, but it would be premature to make a statement. All that I can do today is to assure my hon. Friend that all the points that he has argued will be raised with the appropriate health authorities to be taken fully into account as they devise their strategic plans for the future.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the rumour that is circulating in St. Albans—where we do not suffer as gravely as people in Hemel Hempstead but are still short of vital parts of a hospital, like the addition of two operating theatres—that there may be a decision to make one hospital serve the two areas? This rumour is causing some anxiety. Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten us in any way?

Mr. Morris: If there is time I shall refer to St. Albans later in my speech.
It has long been the intention, as my hon. Friend said, to provide new hospital facilities for the people of Hemel Hempstead. The hospital building programme published in a White Paper in 1966 said so, but subject to the availability of resources. No specific starting date was given, and the inference was the late 1970s or early 1980s. Moves to this end were taken by the former North-West Thames Regional Hospital Board,


whose outline proposals for a new hospital were approved in principle by the Department just before the reduction in capital allocations interrupted the design work. It was then only at the sketch plan stage. But it was already showing signs of being unable to keep within the recognised cost limits, partly because of the nature of the site.
There was, therefore, some need for rethinking. In any case, reconsideration is a natural consequence of NHS reorganisation. A comprehensive planning system has now been set in motion to work on an integrated service basis. The planning units are larger, which should enable us to benefit from economies of scale. There is increasing emphasis on primary and community care, limiting the demand on expensive hospital services, and we have issued strategic guidelines not only on priorities but also on how the various aspects of the health services should be co-ordinated, including some initiatives on prevention.
Partly because of the economic situation and partly perhaps because of over-emphasis on complete replacement of hospitals in recent years, we are also urging health authorities to look for ways of improving existing stock and securing additional facilities through small schemes. Major new hospitals are not, however, precluded where they are the only way to remedy a gap in services. In such circumstances, we are looking for the development of district general hospitals that serve a whole health district.
It is difficult to justify local provision of the full range of facilities for smaller populations. It is beneficial to total patient care that, wherever possible, such facilities should be brought together.
Hemel Hempstead itself does not have sufficient population to justify a full district general hospital on current criteria. On the other hand, the whole of the North-West Hertfordshire Health District, including St. Albans, whose hospital facilities are also inadequate, does meet the criteria. But Hemel Hempstead and St. Albans are some six miles apart. Thus, the health authorities have some difficult planning decisions to take. They will also need to consider the place of local community hospitals in providing

those services which do not need the sophisticated provision of a district general hospital.
Whether the building of new hospitals can be supported in current circumstances and, if so, where and when they should be built are matters primarily for the health authorities to decide. The North-West Thames Regional Health Authority has already recognised that the North-West Hertfordshire Health District is one of the most under-provided locations, in terms of hospital beds, in the region.
We shall not know what will be done about that situation until the Hertfordshire Area Health Authority and the regional health authority have produced their first strategic plans within the planning system that I have already mentioned. These are due for completion by about the end of the year and will be subject to much local consultation, particularly through the community health councils.
I am told that the area health authority intends to issue a consultative document by the end of the month. A copy will be sent to my hon. Friend, who will no doubt help to ensure adequate public debate. I understand that he is to discuss the position with the regional hospital authority chairman on Monday next. This marks the point that the regional health authority is concerned about the provision of adequate facilities for patients.
In drawing up that strategic plan the authorities in the North-West Thames Region face some particular difficulties. Apart from their much curtailed allocation of capital moneys, they have been asked to contain their revenue expenditure in the region as a whole at the level of last year's spending, to enable such additional money as is available to be given to the less-well-provided regions. The regional health authority has been urged to seek the most equitable distribution of that money throughout the region, but decisions on changing the pattern of spending cannot be lightly taken, affecting as they do the use of existing plant and buildings and the position of staff.
The regional health authority has set up a working party with its area health authorities to study the situation with a view to adjustments starting next year.


They will take into account any savings within the region as a result of the major exercise that we have launched to reduce administrative costs. It will clearly be essential for some such redeployment of resources if a new hospital in North-West Hertfordshire is to be viable. If it is to provide the extra facilities that appear to be necessary, it will cost more to run. For instance, it was estimated that the hospital at Hemel Hempstead, agreed in principle in 1974, would cost about £800,000 extra per year at September 1972 prices. In current terms that would now be about an extra £1·6 million per year.
To sum up, I do not want to raise any false hopes. On the other hand, I assure my hon. Friend that the situation is under very active review by the health authorities. I am sure that they will take what he has said fully into account. They have some hard decisions to make, but the planning system now in operation should ensure that they are made as objectively as possible. Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend again on the deep concern and sincerity of his advocy in opening the debate.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—if I may point in the tail end of the debate—on dealing so fully with such an important local matter. The debate has had the result of getting on to the record a good deal of important background material that is helpful for all of us in similar circumstances and situations to those of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew)

and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett).
I shall make two quick points, First. I welcome the fact that it has been possible to put on record the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), when Secretary of State, was able to obtain an increase of £880 million in these difficult economic times. That is a tribute to the way in which she cared for the service. Secondly, the background to the debate has been that the Government have been prepared to put people before buildings. I believe that to be the correct policy. That means a problem for many of us who have local treasurers who concentrate not only on new hospitals but on the extension and improvement of old hospitals. However, it is right that the salary of nurses, pysiotherapists and ancillary workers should have been given priority. Over the past two years, for the first time for many years, we have seen a breakthrough in that regard.
I was delighted to hear the background case put forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I know of his special interest not only in making an improvement on the institutional side but in improving domiciliary care, especially for the disabled. However, if that sort of thing is to be done for the elderly in the community, there must be a balance between that and what we are able to do for our hospital service.

Question put and agreeed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Five o'clock.